Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 22, 2026.

Mechanisms of Macrophage Plasticity in the Tumor Environment: Manipulating Activation State to Improve Outcomes

Tiffany Davia Ricketts, Nestor Prieto-Dominguez, Pramod Sreerama Gowda and 1 more

Frontiers in Immunology · 2021 · Review · CC BY

doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.642285

Abstract

Macrophages are a specialized class of innate immune cells with multifaceted roles in modulation of the inflammatory response, homeostasis, and wound healing. While developmentally derived or originating from circulating monocytes, naïve macrophages can adopt a spectrum of context-dependent activation states ranging from pro-inflammatory (classically activated, M1) to pro-wound healing (alternatively activated, M2). Tumors are known to exploit macrophage polarization states to foster a tumor-permissive milieu, particularly by skewing macrophages toward a pro-tumor (M2) phenotype. These pro-tumoral macrophages can support cancer progression by several mechanisms including immune suppression, growth factor production, promotion of angiogenesis and tissue remodeling. By preventing the adoption of this pro-tumor phenotype or reprogramming these macrophages to a more pro-inflammatory state, it may be possible to inhibit tumor growth. Here, we describe types of tumor-derived signaling that facilitate macrophage reprogramming, including paracrine signaling and activation of innate immune checkpoints. We also describe intervention strategies targeting macrophage plasticity to limit disease progression and address their implications in cancer chemo- and 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

Macrophages represent one of the most phenotypically diverse innate immune cell populations. They are key homeostatic regulators that activate and modulate the innate and, subsequent adaptive immune response to infectious agents and host-derived components. Much like other innate immune cells, they are hard-wired to respond to cues rather than being “educated” to elicit a response, as is the case of adaptive immune cells. Macrophages are equipped with a variety of Pattern Recognition Receptors (PRRs) that, once activated, trigger pre-determined programs in response to environmental stimuli. Some pro-inflammatory stimuli include Pathogen-Associated Molecular Patterns (PAMPs), cellular or chemical moieties derived from pathogens, or Damage-Associated Molecular Patterns (DAMPs) which are released by damaged cells and malignancies. These signatures permit macrophage adoption of the appropriate functional phenotype to restore physiological equilibrium.

During infections, macrophage polarization to the proinflammatory state is crucial for the production of type 1 cytokines such as interferon-γ (IFNγ), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα) and interleukin 12 (IL-12) for host resistance. This is similar to the response following injury. Cells in damaged tissues undergo necrosis and release their contents in an uncontrolled manner. Contrary to apoptosis, which is a highly organized program for cell death, necrosis is more immunogenic and induces a macrophage pro-inflammatory response. Cellular components released during necrosis act as DAMPs that, when bound to PRRs like Toll-like Receptors (TLRs), initiate pro-inflammatory signaling in resident and extravasated monocyte-derived macrophages. Activation of PRRs, and other sensors, facilitate the adoption of a pre-programmed pro-inflammatory state, also termed M1 or “classically activated” ( Figure 1 ). This occurs through increased activation of signaling pathways involving NFκB, p38, MAPK, and others, which regulate the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IL-1, IL-6, IL-12) ( Figure 2 ). These macrophage-secreted signals recruit a variety of other immune cells that pioneer the clearance of infected and damaged material.

A hallmark of the pro-inflammatory response is the destruction of damaged cells and those in the immediate vicinity. This creates a need for wound healing to restore tissue integrity. Upon removal of damaged tissue, the aggregate population of macrophages at the site of injury transitions to a pro-wound healing phenotype, also referred to as M2 ( Figure 1 ). This transition is triggered by anti-inflammatory mediators following the loss of pro-inflammatory signals, like DAMPs. These pro-wound healing macrophages coordinate the proliferation of key cell types including vascular endothelial cells, which promote recellularization by delivering oxygen and nutrients to the site of repair, and fibroblasts which drive scar formation. Macrophages also dampen the local inflammatory response, fostering a more hospitable environment for continued repair, cellular proliferation and the prevention of extensive or persistent inflammation that might contribute to further tissue damage.

While macrophage plasticity is beneficial during the wound healing process, the macrophage response is subverted during cancer. Often termed “a wound that does not heal”, tumors manipulate and reshape the immune response to promote and sustain tumor growth. Presumably, due to the inhospitable nature of the tumor microenvironment (e.g., hypoxia, nutrient starvation), cancer cells undergo necrotic death which should induce the macrophage pro-inflammatory response, ultimately leading to further immune activation and reduced tumor growth. However, in many tumors, the pro-wound healing phenotype is predominant, which actually supports cancer progression. This review outlines strategies employed by tumors to mitigate macrophage pro-inflammatory activation or engage the pro-wound healing response. Current therapeutic interventions that alter the intra-tumoral M1/M2 balance and shift it towards a more pro-inflammatory/anti-tumor response are also described. We also explore potential conceptual flaws in the current pro-inflammatory/pro-wound healing paradigm in cancer, based on recent single-cell RNA-seq findings, and implications these could have in the manipulation of macrophage activation state to reduce tumor growth.

The Role of Macrophages in the Anti-Tumor Response

During tumorigenesis, genetic mutations can be acquired through exposure to chemical carcinogens, radiation or viral infections. Alternatively, inherited mutations or those accumulated during chronic inflammation may also drive carcinogenesis. Cell intrinsic tumor suppressive mechanisms, like DNA repair, senescence or apoptosis, often fail to contain tumor cell proliferation, promoting the need for immune-mediated elimination of the aberrant cells. Ideally, early responding immune cells, like macrophages, will detect and eliminate tumor cells. Much like during wound healing, macrophages may detect DAMPs, possibly from hypoxia-induced tumor cell death or dysregulated cellular processes, to trigger a pro-inflammatory response and pave the way for true wound healing or a return to homeostasis. Alternatively, macrophages or dendritic cells, as antigen presenting cells, may engulf tumor neo-antigens, process them and present antigenic peptides to tissue resident CD8+ or CD4+ T cells, or in the case of dendritic cells, transit to the draining lymph node to activate T cells. Whether for tissue resident or T cells transiting from the lymph nodes, pro-inflammatory macrophages provide co-stimulatory signals such as CD40 or CD80/86, secrete activating cytokines, and generate nitric oxide to increase vascular permeability and immune cell infiltrate. T cells with the cognate receptor matching the tumor neo-antigen, in the presence of co-stimulation, should eradicate tumor cells unless they encounter other immuno-suppressive signals.

While many early-stage tumors are presumably destroyed through these mechanisms, the immune response to cancer is clearly not effective. Rather, based on the immune-editing hypothesis, the pro-inflammatory response applies a selective pressure, forcing tumors to “evolve” to avoid detection (e.g., through reduced antigenic protein expression, reduction in antigen presentation or suppression of the local immune response). Alternatively, nascent tumors may undergo a period of dormancy, and may later be reactivated by acquired secondary or tertiary mutations that allow for reduced immunogenicity or increased immune suppression. Collectively, this evolution is thought to allow tumor cells to reach an equilibrium with the immune response. Following this equilibrium state, tumors may effectively “escape” the immune response by utilizing mechanisms to prevent immune activation, allowing them to grow largely unchecked.

Consequently, these immuno-editing processes may limit macrophage responsiveness to DAMPs and tumor neo-antigens, effectively abrogating their ability to transition to an M1 phenotype and promote T cell activation. In many tumors, there is a promotion of the M2 phenotype which fosters tumor growth. Presumably, either acquired through the equilibrium/escape processes of immuno-editing or because tumors provide contextual cues similar to those that promote the pro-wound healing response. These M2 macrophages are pro-tumorigenic and are often denoted as tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs). Akin to the wound healing response, macrophages facilitate cellular proliferation through production of growth factors like Wnts, CXCL8 or IL-6. However, instead of promoting the re-growth of tissue resident cells, these factors drive tumor growth. Likewise, macrophages also secrete key effectors of vascularization, like the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) and transforming growth factor β (TGFβ) to promote angiogenesis ( Figure 1 ). These physiologic processes are hijacked to increase blood flow to the tumor, increasing tumor cell access to oxygen and nutrients for continued cell proliferation. M2 macrophages may also maintain tumor growth through the remodeling of the extracellular matrix (ECM) through secretion of matrix metalloproteases (MMPs) and other factors ( Figure 1 ).

In the tumor context, pro-inflammatory macrophages are considered a positive prognostic marker. Pro-inflammatory macrophages are thought to positively regulate the immune response and kill tumor cells directly. These polarized macrophages prevent tumor growth by generating factors such as reactive oxygen and nitrogen species, or other secreted factors like TNFα, that lead to tumor cell death. Macrophages can be induced to a pro-inflammatory state by other immune cells, such as through the secretion of IFNγ by T cells, or directly by tumor cells. Alternatively, DAMPs can be released by necrotic or necroptotic tumor cell death due to hypoxia or nutrient deprivation within the tumor microenvironment. These DAMPs, whether they be nucleic acids, ATP, stress-related proteins such as heat shock proteins (HSPs), or transcription factors such as HMGB1, HMGN1, bind to and activate two major classes of PRRs including the TLRs or the NOD-like receptor (NLR) family. Interestingly, several TLRs that recognize pathogenic signatures also recognize DAMPs. For instance, TLR4, which is activated by the binding of bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) also recognizes HSPs and transcription factors.

Conversely, the presence of M2 pro-wound healing macrophages in tumors is generally a negative prognostic marker, with patients with high numbers of intra-tumoral M2 macrophages showing decreased survival. Tumor cells are known to secrete, or induce the secretion of, factors like IL-4, IL-10 or IL-13 that polarize macrophages toward an M2 phenotype. Some pro-wound healing properties of M2 macrophages foster tumor growth and prepare a tumor-friendly milieu ( Figure 1 ). M2 macrophages can act to directly increase tumor growth by secretion of growth factors like endothelial growth factor (EGF), VEGF and TGFβ, and can reduce the hypoxia inherent in most tumors while allowing the delivery of nutrients to sustain tumor growth. M2 macrophages also assist in the remodeling of the tumor microenvironment. Regulation of fibroblast ECM placement, degradation of existing ECMs through MMPs and chemotactic migration signals, allow continued tumor growth and metastasis. In some cases, live cell imaging has shown tumor cells utilizing accessory macrophages to travel to blood vessels and allow entry into the vasculature.

Macrophage-Directed Therapeutic Strategies for Cancer Treatment

Based on knowledge garnered from the study of macrophage activation states in tumors, as well as associated signaling affecting polarization, several strategies have been developed to mitigate tumor progression by altering macrophage infiltration or by activating/re-activating them to a pro-inflammatory state. While a limited number of macrophage-directed therapeutics are currently in use in clinical trials, continued identification and pharmacological targeting of macrophages is expected to bolster the use of macrophage targeted agents.

Macrophage Depletion to Reduce Pro-Tumoral Activity

Since higher numbers of TAMs are associated with worse cancer prognosis, research has focused on reducing their numbers by targeting their tumor recruitment and differentiation. As a result, some of the subsequent strategies are being tested for clinical use and may be broadly available soon.

Macrophages, similar to other phagocytes, can be selectively targeted by complexing cellular pro-apoptotic substances, such as bisphosphonates, into nanoparticles ( Table 1 ). The deletion of TAMs by using clodronate encapsulated in liposomes (clodrolip) leads to reduced teratocarcinoma and rhabdomyosarcoma tumor growth in pre-clinical murine studies. This inhibition was coupled with a decrease in tumor microvascular density, suggesting its potential combination with VEGF-neutralizing agents to maximize its effect.

Alternatively, inhibition of the chemotactic axis CCL2-CCR2 may prevent the accumulation of circulating macrophages within the tumor microenvironment. Indeed, several monotherapy or combinational clinical trials are currently underway with positive results. However, CCL2-CCR2 inhibitors should be carefully administered since the sudden interruption of therapeutic regimens could dramatically increase tumor progression and metastasis.

Additionally, targeting the monocyte/macrophage colony stimulating factor (CSF-1) and its receptor (CSF-1R) is a tractable strategy for macrophage depletion. In the absence of this signal, bloodborne monocytes are unable to differentiate into macrophages, preventing macrophage tumoral accumulation. Accordingly, several CSF-1R/CSF-1 targeted therapies, such as PLX3397, JNJ-40346527 and BLZ945, are currently being tested in clinical trials either alone or in combination for the treatment of several cancers. However, these inhibitors can also stimulate the recruitment of tumor-promoting granulocytes to the site of the tumor, resulting in therapy failure. Therefore, combination of CSF-1R repressor with adaptive immune checkpoint inhibitors may be an interesting strategy to mitigate this unexpected effect.

Finally, the antineoplastic agent, trabectedin, also depletes TAMs to induce pro-inflammatory T cell recruitment in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma preclinical models. Therefore, it could also be a potential new strategy for TAM depletion during cancer treatment.

Manipulating Macrophage Activation State to Improve the Anti-Tumor Response

Using in vitro models of macrophage polarization, it has been shown that responses to respective M1/M2 stimuli are transient. Treatment with M1 inducing agents, like LPS and IFNγ, induce a pro-inflammatory response within 2-4 hours, which may subside within 24-48 hours. After this transient activation, macrophages return to a “resting” state akin to the naïve (M0) polarization. Likewise, activation with one stimulus does not preclude the ability to adopt a subsequent, alternative polarization. A notable example is when stimulating conditions are switched from IFNγ to IL-4 or vice versa, macrophages adopt the profile of the most current cytokine microenvironment. Gao and colleagues utilized M-CSF and IL-4 to induce human monocyte differentiation to the M2 phenotype. Following M2 polarization, macrophages were treated with lactoferrin-containing IgG immunocomplex (LTF-IC), which promotes M1-like activation and is an immune activator in rheumatoid arthritis. After M1 stimulation, M2 marker expression was reduced while M1 markers were increased. In a similar experiment, Cheng et al. induced M2 polarization in murine RAW264.7 cells using IL-4 and IL-13. Subsequent treatment of M2 macrophages with a β-1,6-glucan (AAMP-A70) caused a reduction of M2 polarization concurrently with increased M1 marker expression. These findings are particularly important in the context of cancer treatment, as they clearly demonstrate the plasticity of macrophages depend on the environmental stimuli.

Considering the transient and plastic nature of macrophages, paired with the negative prognosis of intra-tumoral M2 macrophage accumulation, several approaches have been developed to repolarize M2 macrophages to an M1 phenotype. Macrophages, much like T cells, also have immune checkpoints. The prevention of tumors from activating innate immune checkpoints, is another approach in preventing the suppression of macrophage anti-tumor responses. Alternative approaches that manipulate the plasticity of macrophages are being heavily explored. Several of these strategies are described in the following sections.

Pro-Inflammatory Stimulation via TLR Agonism

The activation of TLRs, surface or endosomal proteins able to detect cellular damage and induce a proinflammatory immune response, have been broadly used therapeutically to alter macrophage activation in several diseases, including cancer ( Figure 2 ). The rationale is that the stimulation of these receptors, particularly within the tumor environment, may activate the pro-inflammatory response seen during the early stages of wound healing and infection, leading to the eradication of tumor cells. Moreover, the release of tumor-derived DAMPs and neo-antigens during this process should generate a positive feedback loop to further increase the anti-tumor response. A potential drawback of this form of therapy is tolerization, a state of unresponsiveness that appears after repetitive exposure to the same inductor, characterized by the release of anti-inflammatory factors that mask TLR activation.

Components of pathogenic organisms, such as LPS, derived mainly from Eschericia coli, are commonly used tools to activate macrophages and induce a pro-inflammatory state, often in combination with IFNγ to maximize the effects. However, LPS administration in humans produces severe toxicity and multiple exposures rapidly lead to tolerance, thus new strategies to improve its clinical use are currently being investigated. More recently, TLR3, TLR7/8 and TLR9 agonists have risen as new therapeutic alternatives to induce a TLR-dependent, tumor-localized pro-inflammatory response. For instance, the TLR7 agonist, Imiquimod, induces a robust rejection of skin primary malignancies and metastases by generating a pro-inflammatory tumor microenvironment in human patients ( Table 1 ). Similarly, polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid (poly-IC), a TLR3 agonist, triggers T cell tumor infiltration and Th1 responses, which should in turn activate macrophages through IFNγ signaling, to reduce malignant growth. Finally, the TLR9 agonist family CpG oligodeoxynucleotides (CpG ODN) have also shown strong cancer cytotoxic effects by exerting a potent tumor-localized immunostimulatory action ( Table 1 ). Based on early successes, these TLR agonists are currently in Phase 1/2/3 clinical trials.

To target macrophages more specifically, nanoparticles that take advantage of the phagocytic properties of macrophages are being developed. After injection, nanoparticles are trafficked to the tumor where they are engulfed by macrophages. Techniques are being developed to package TLR agonists into nanoparticles for more specific activation of these immune cells. This novel approach would reduce the off-target effects of TLR agonists on other immune cells, such as lymphocytes, as well as to reduce their tolerizing effects. Furthermore, injected nanoparticles tend to accumulate in the tumor because of often ill-formed and leaky tumor vasculature, leading to a therapy more targeted to intra-tumoral macrophages. Loading β-cyclodextrin nanoparticles with the TLR7/8 agonist R484 has surfaced as one of the most promising techniques to restrain tumor growth by shifting TAM behavior to the M1 state.

Activating ATP NOD-Like Receptors to Promote M1 Polarization

Purinergic activation of macrophages plays a crucial role for the secretion of the pro-inflammatory cytokines, IL-1β and IL-18, and can be mediated through the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome ( Figure 2 ). Cellular stress (e.g., exposure to chemotherapeutics, toxins, and radiation) and tissue damage are key contributors to ATP release into the extracellular environment. Release of ATP is one of the most potent DAMPs for immune activation, promoting M1 macrophage polarization and increasing macrophage tumoricidal potential, ( Figure 2 ). However, to maintain the cellular ATP equilibrium, tumor cells, macrophages, and other immune cells, express ectonucleotidases to maintain the concentration gradient. CD39 and CD73 are ectonucleotidases that are involved in the formation of the metabolite adenosine (ADO). CD39 sequentially hydrolyzes ATP and ADP to form AMP, whereas CD73 hydrolyzes AMP to form ADO ( Figure 2 ). This shift in the concentration gradient also acts as a switch to a more M2-like functional program and attenuates the anti-tumor response. Adenosine activates ADO/purinergic G-coupled protein receptors on tumor and immune cells, such as macrophages, to induce immunosuppression. Likewise, ADO also functions to inhibit TLR signaling and the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines such as TNFα, IL-6, and IL-8 from activated human monocytes. Given the contrasting nature of ATP versus ADO signaling for macrophage activation in tumor immunity, this interface serves as a potential target for the clearance of tumor cells. Inhibition of CD39 in preclinical models have shown significant promise in diminishing the immunosuppressive activity of TAMs, whereas inhibition of CD73 proved effective in controlling metastatic growth ( Table 1 ). Furthermore, combinational therapeutic strategies employing innate immune checkpoint inhibitors and anti-CD39 or anti-CD73 promoted antitumor immunity. Lastly, antagonism of the ATP receptors (P2X7) increases tumor infiltrating immune effector populations and decreases tumor burden ( Table 1 ).

Macrophage Polarization by Targeting Intracellular Signaling Mechanisms

In addition to mimicking extracellular pro-inflammatory stimuli, intracellular signaling pathways are also being targeted to reduce the prevalence of M2 signaling in tumors. This has been observed in the tumor-mediated manipulation of macrophage PI3Kγ signaling to reduce the pro-inflammatory response. Actually, targeting PI3Kγ pharmacologically has effectively “flipped the switch” from M2 to M1 in preclinical models. PI3K is a family of phosphorylation enzymes that act on the 3’ end of phosphatidylinositol (PI) and work in conjunction with the Akt family of serine/threonine kinases and the mechanistic target of rapamycin complex (mTORC) 2 to switch the activation status of TLR-stimulated macrophages to a less pro-inflammatory program ( Figure 2 ). PI3K/Akt signaling is involved in migration and diapedesis of innate immune effectors such as neutrophils and monocytes/macrophages and is associated with the upregulation and stabilization of hypoxia-induced transcription factors in macrophages. Induction of these transcription factors is associated with the hypoxic tumor microenvironment and stimulates M2-like characteristics in macrophages, thus supporting tumorigenesis and metastasis. Moreover, the PI3K/Akt pathway also promotes macrophage-mediated remodeling of the ECM, angiogenesis and immunosuppression of the adaptive immune response. Inhibition of PI3K signaling has shown considerable effects in regulating VEGF expression, a known factor that stimulates the adoption of the M2 functional program. There are several preclinical and clinical studies aimed at manipulating PI3K signaling to improve tumor outcomes. Inhibition of this pathway has been shown to increase macrophage infiltration and production of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines. Akt signaling has differential downstream effects and deficiencies in Akt1 induced M1 activation. Consequently, inhibition of Akt signaling disrupts mTORC2 aggregation which diminished macrophage viability and proliferation.

The signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) signaling pathway is also of clinical interest. Downstream of several receptor tyrosine kinases, the STAT family communicates signals from the cytosolic face of the plasma membrane to the nucleus, where STAT dimers act as transcription factors and transcriptional modulators. STAT1 is recognized as a pro-inflammatory mediator and signaling can be initiated by type I and II interferons, growth factors, TLR activity and cytokine release. STAT1 signaling has broad effects on cancer and can either be antitumoral or pro-tumoral. Antitumoral STAT1 signaling is usually attributed to the tumoricidal activity of M1 macrophages while the pro-tumoral action is affiliated with the enrichment of STAT1-dependent genes that protect against genotoxic damage or promote tumor growth. Conversely, STAT3 is broadly recognized as an anti-inflammatory regulator, stimulating M2-like macrophage polarization. STAT3 phosphorylation can be triggered by interleukins such as IL-8, IL-10, IL-35 and growth factors such as EGF. Following activation, STAT3 signaling promotes a myriad of pro-tumoral outcomes such as the inhibition of apoptosis, cell proliferation, metastasis, angiogenesis and therapeutic resistance. Studies targeting the activation of STAT1 or the suppression of STAT3 may be crucial for manipulating the balance of M1/M2 signaling.

Other transcription factors are also under study for potential roles in M1/M2 plasticity. These include KLF6, Zeb1 and NFAT1. KLF6 is a transcriptional regulator of macrophage polarization that serves as a phenotypic switch to transform M2-polarized TAMs to M1, effectively inhibiting tumor proliferation and migration. Contrariwise, ZEB1 is associated with TAM pro-tumoral activity, indicated by its ability to pioneer epithelial to mesenchymal transition to maintain tumor progression and initiate metastasis. Nuclear factor of activated T cell (NFAT) also supports the M2-like phenotype of TAMs through the regulation of interleukins (IL-6, IL-10, IL-12) and multiple TLR-induced genes such as iNOS. NFAT1 is overexpressed in TAMs and promotes tumor cell proliferation, invasion and metastasis and facilitates the recruitment of macrophage populations that are associated with poorer outcomes. Given the role of NFAT signaling in regulating immune homeostasis, NFAT inhibition may effectively suppress anti-inflammatory cytokine production while subsequently initiating pro-inflammatory and tumoricidal programs within these tumor-associated macrophage populations.

Unfortunately, because individual transcription factors tend to be involved in transcriptional regulation throughout the genome, specifically targeting them to selectively target individual regulatory programs remains elusive. However, as time goes on, it may be possible to more selectively target individual immune cell types or add co-factors to increase specificity, yielding more robust anti-tumor efficacy.

Manipulating Macrophage Metabolism to Increase M1 Polarization

The metabolic changes associated with M1/M2 polarization may also regulate activation state. Much like the distinct glutaminase-dependent differentiations of Th17 and Th1 T cells to regulate the immune response, direct metabolic changes in macrophages, or the output of altered metabolism, can affect M1/M2 polarization.

Arginase is essential for amino acid metabolism and has potent immunomodulatory effects through the catalysis of L-arginine. L-arginine is involved in nitric oxide synthesis which contributes to the tumoricidal activity of macrophages. However, the catabolism of L-arginine by arginase results in the formation of L-ornithine and its decomposition product, putrescine, which are known to support the cell growth and proliferation of tumor cells. Furthermore, increased production by TAMs impairs the antitumor immune response. Likewise, putrescine induces macrophage efferocytosis to prevent inflammation and promote tissue repair, a hallmark of tumor progression. Catabolism of L-arginine also has devastating consequences for other immune effectors, such as cell cycle arrest and anergy. Inhibition of arginase I expression reduces tumor burden and subsequently increases lymphocyte infiltration within the tumor microenvironment indicating significant potential for clinical testing.

Like arginase, indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO1) is an immunosuppressive molecule secreted by TAMs. IDO1 catabolizes tryptophan to kynurenine which binds to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor to trigger a myriad of immunoregulatory mechanisms in immune cells. The signaling cascade triggered by IDO1 enzymatic activity facilitates immune evasion by diminishing lymphocyte responsiveness and anticancer immunosurveillance. IDO1 activity is also suggested to increase tolerance in macrophages, downregulate antigen presentation molecules (HLA-DR) and decreased macrophage phagocytic activity. Furthermore, IDO has also been shown to increase M2 polarization and recruitment while inhibition of IDO activity increases M1 populations. IDO1 inhibition prevents tryptophan depletion and subsequently blocks the associated downstream immunosuppressive signals. This suggests that targeting IDO enzymatic activity in tumors that overexpress this enzyme may improve macrophage polarization to M1, immune activation and immunotherapeutic efficacy.

Targeting Innate Immune Checkpoints to Improve Therapeutic Outcomes

Much like the adaptive immune response, immune checkpoints have been discovered and characterized for innate immune cells. One example is the Tyro3/Axl/Mer (TAM) family of receptor tyrosine kinases, ( Figure 2 ). During normal physiological processes, this family of receptors is instrumental in apoptotic cell engulfment and degradation (efferocytosis). The TAM family of receptors has 5 known ligands, Gas6, Pros1, Gal3, Tubby and Tulp1. As cells undergo apoptosis, phosphatidylserine that has flipped from the cytosolic face of the plasma membrane to the extracellular region is recognized by these ligands to form a bridge to the TAM receptors. However, these ligands can also activate the TAM receptors in the absence of phosphatidylserine, though activation is reduced. Lastly, kinase inhibition or genetic loss of Mer prevents internalization of apoptotic material.

In addition to its role in efferocytosis, genetic lack of Mer is associated with hypersensitivity to TLR activation, suggesting its role in limiting the innate immune response and preventing autoimmunity. More recently, it was shown by Lemke and Rothlin, in dendritic cells, that activation of Mer initiates an anti-inflammatory program involving upregulation of Socs1/2. Later, Cook et al., demonstrated, in the context of cancer, that genetic deletion of Mer was associated with reduced M2 macrophage polarization with increased M1. Ubil et al. later showed that tumor-secreted Pros1, acting on Mer and Tyro3 induces the downregulation of pro-inflammatory gene expression. Mice bearing tumors with genetic deletion of Pros1 showed increased intra-tumoral macrophages that were skewed towards the M1 phenotype. This was associated with increased adaptive immune infiltrate with approximately 5-fold more CD4+ and CD8+ T cells as well as a ~50% reduction in Tregs. Mice with Pros1 deficient tumors lived ~30% longer than mice with parental tumors. Furthermore, addition of the TLR7/8 agonist, Resiquimod, did not improve survival in mice bearing Pros1 replete tumors whereas survival duration was doubled for mice whose tumors lacked Pros1. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that tumor secretions can dampen the innate, macrophage, response and subsequently the adaptive immune response. TAM kinase inhibitors are currently in Phase I clinical trials for the treatment of human cancers.

Another marker involved in immune checkpoints and expressed by intra-tumoral macrophages is PD-L1. PD-L1 is generally associated with expression by tumors, particularly in response to IFNγ. When tumor expressed PD-L1 binds to PD-1 on T cells, it leads to T cell inactivation and facilitates tumor immune evasion. Tumors are also able to induce expression of PD-L1 in macrophages to similarly limit the action of effector T cells. Macrophage PD-L1 - T cell PD-1 interactions are, therefore, at the interface of innate and adaptive immune responses.

Several PD-1 and PD-L1 targeted therapeutics are currently in the clinic for treatment of various forms of cancer. In addition to the direct effects of blocking PD-1/PD-L1 interactions, PD-1 targeted treatments also induce secondary effects, such as the increased polarization of macrophages from a pro-wound healing phenotype to a more anti-tumor, pro-inflammatory, state. Xiong et al. characterized intra-tumoral macrophage polarization states of MC38 tumor bearing mice after anti-PD-1 treatment. They observed an increase in the numbers of M1-like and M1/M2 intermediate macrophages with a decrease in M2-like phenotypes. Using IFNγ depletion of supernatants from tumors which had either been treated with vehicle or anti-PD-1 antibody, they determined that IFNγ was a primary driver of macrophage polarization. Presumably, anti-PD-1 treatment of tumor bearing mice led to increased T cell activation, including IFNγ secretion. In turn, polarization of intra-tumoral macrophages were skewed towards an M1 state, including increased antigen presentation and expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Activated M1 macrophages increased T cell activation in a self-reinforcing cycle, ultimately leading to reduced tumor growth. This study succinctly demonstrates the importance and inter-relatedness of the innate and adaptive immune functions in limiting tumor progression.

Targeting “Don’t Eat Me” Signaling to Improve Macrophage Activation and Antitumor Immunity

A crucial aspect of macrophage activity is phagocytosis, the internalization of cells, pathogens, and other particles for tissue homeostasis. As key endocytosing immune cells, macrophages are the primary phagocytic population and should be able to recognize aberrant cells and clear them using this process. However, tumor cells express anti-phagocytic ligands or “don’t eat me” signals similar to healthy cells in order to avoid elimination.

CD47 is an immunoglobulin that is crucial in self recognition for the maintenance of immune tolerance and homeostasis. It complexes with the signal regulatory protein α (SIRPα) on phagocytic cells to inhibit uptake and subsequent immune activation. However, this molecule is also expressed on the surface of many tumor cells and plays a key role in immune evasion ( Figure 2 ). CD47/SIRPα signaling leads to the phosphorylation of the SIRPα cytoplasmic immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibition motifs (ITIM) resulting in the recruitment of the tyrosine phosphatases SHP1/2. This signaling mechanism prevents the accumulation of myosin at the phagocytic synapse, effectively inhibiting phagocytosis. This process is crucial in preventing uncontrolled clearance of healthy cells but becomes a detriment based on its role in facilitating immune evasion in cancer. As such, these signals are also targeted to improve the antitumor response. CD47 blockade has shown significant efficacy in the treatment of several hematological cancers and solid tumors which may be mediated by innate immune effector populations such as macrophages ( Table 1 ). Furthermore, preclinical models of the CD47/SIRPα signaling axis are highly efficacious for treating multiple cancer types and are currently being probed in clinical trials.

CD24 is another “don’t eat me” signal that is expressed by many tumor types ( Figure 2 ). CD24 is a glycosylphosphatidylinositol anchored protein that is known to complex with Siglec10 on macrophages and other innate immune cells for the suppression of the inflammatory response in many conditions including sepsis, liver damage and infection. Like CD47 signaling, the CD24/Siglec10 signaling axis results in the recruitment of SHP1/2 at the ITIMs of Siglec10, inhibiting the TLR-mediated inflammatory response and the cytoskeleton rearrangement required for phagocytosis. As such, the CD24/Siglec10 complex is a potent inhibitor of macrophage phagocytic activity and is protective of cancer cells. Inhibition of the CD24/Siglec10 signaling axis restores the macrophage-mediated antitumor response by enhancing phagocytic clearance of tumor cells. Moreover, increased uptake of antigenic materials is also associated with increased immune activation and infiltration within the tumor microenvironment.

The importance of these signaling cascades in regulating macrophage plasticity are extensively studied and new models are currently being probed to increase innate immune activation and improve current immunotherapeutic approaches. A summary of these targets and their effect on macrophage activity within the tumor microenvironment, along with their development status, are described in Table 1.

Current Experimental Modeling of M1/M2 Phenotypes May Not Accurately Represent Intra-Tumoral Macrophage Polarization States

To model macrophage responses, the M1/M2 paradigm was developed and dates back more than 20 years. In early models, naïve macrophages were induced to adopt two known polarization states. Since then, through decades of research, multiple in vitro models of M1 and M2 polarization have been developed in which various exogenous stimuli can induce activation states that mimic physiological conditions (e.g., pathogenic infection, pro-inflammatory activation by T cells, etc.). At present, experimental macrophage models have been delineated into 5 core subsets: M1, M2a, M2b, M2c and M2d, ( Figure 1 ).

Historically, activation of the M1 state has been modeled using stimuli such as LPS, IFNγ (a pro-inflammatory signal derived from activated T cells) or both in combination. While LPS induces TLR4 activation and downstream NFκB signaling, IFNγ binds the IFNgR1/2 complex, leading to STAT1 phosphorylation and nuclear translocation to mediate pro-inflammatory gene expression. Alternatively, addition of TNFα to naïve macrophages yields a similar activation state. TNFα binds to TNFR1 and TNFR2, leading to activation of downstream signaling cascades including p38 and others. The pro-inflammatory signaling pathways tend to converge on NFκB, STAT1 and MAPK pathways, with significant crosstalk effectively leading to similar outcomes in terms of gene expression changes and activation states.

M2 activation states are comparatively more complicated with at least 4 different subsets being identified, including M2a, M2b, M2c and the relatively newer M2d phenotype ( Figure 1 ). Induced by IL-4, IL-13 or the combination thereof, M2a has been described as an anti-inflammatory and pro-wound healing subset. M2b, which is induced by addition of IL-1β, has shown immuno-regulatory properties and associated gene expression. M2c macrophages, induced by treatment with IL-10, show increased expression of immune suppressive and tissue remodeling markers. Some indications also suggest efferocytosis is increased in M2c macrophages. Finally, in an attempt to create a model of TAMs (M2d), it was discovered that treatment with IL-6 could cause upregulation of tumor growth and angiogenesis markers.

At this point, there is not one clearly prevailing macrophage M2 subset that best represents tumor associated macrophages. Instead, researchers often combine multiple stimuli, such as IL-4 (M2a), IL-13 (M2a) and IL-10 (M2c), which are present in the tumor microenvironment, to mimic tumor associated macrophages.

While continually improving, our understanding of intra-tumoral macrophage activation states have led to an iterative improvement in models. However, newer and better methodologies are currently being utilized to disaggregate our current population-level understanding. Specifically, single cell RNA-seq (sc-RNA-seq) has refined our understanding of intra-tumoral macrophage heterogeneity and called into question some of our existing paradigms on “either/or” M1/M2 polarization.

Single-Cell RNA-Seq Data Sheds New Light on Intra-Tumoral Macrophage Polarization

Based on established in vitro models of macrophage polarization (M1/M2), early characterization of intra-tumoral macrophages focused on a few pro-inflammatory or pro-wound healing markers (e.g., iNOS, IL-1, CD206, etc.) to identify activation states. As more nuanced models of polarization have been developed, additional markers have been identified, demonstrating that rather than adhering to distinct polarized types, macrophages exhibit a spectrum of overlapping activation states. Further complicating the ability to describe tumor associated macrophages is that spatial location and microenvironmental factors can have major impacts on polarity, causing macrophages in one part of the tumor to have very different activation states than those in adjacent locations. The advent of single cell RNA-seq has opened new venues for understanding intra-tumoral macrophage activation and may identify misconceptions about how macrophages behave in the tumor microenvironment. This new technique allows for the characterization of individual cells within the tumor resident immune cell subset. Depending on the process flow, immune cell subtypes may be enriched prior to single-cell RNA-seq analysis or bioinformatically identified based on expression patterns. Several variations of single-cell RNA-seq exist, some of which also incorporate locational data.

Characterization of Macrophage Activation State in Tumors

Using single-cell RNA-seq to characterize immune subset in primary breast cancer samples, Chung et al. found that macrophages tend toward the M2 phenotype, confirming previous findings that breast cancer tends to foster M2 polarization. Of the 515 cells from 11 patients characterized, most non-carcinoma cells in the cancer samples were identified as immune cells based on their gene expression signatures. TAMs were primarily found to have pro-wound healing M2-associated profiles. A key finding of this paper is that it supports the notion that in breast cancer, many macrophages and other innate and adaptive cell populations have an immune suppressive phenotype.

Recognizing that there is robust heterogeneity of intra-tumoral macrophage polarization states, single cell RNA-seq is also being used to determine whether there are discrete activation states or whether there is a contiguous spectrum driven by local microenvironmental conditions. Azizi et al., employed a large-scale, high-dimensional analysis platform to characterize the immune profiles of more than 45,000 cells from eight breast carcinomas, matched with normal breast tissue, blood and lymph nodes using single-cell RNA-seq. To do so, they collected CD45 positive cells from treatment-naïve breast cancer patients including estrogen receptor (ER+) and progesterone receptor (PR+) positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 amplified (HER2+) and triple negative (TNBC) tumors. These CD45+ cells were isolated by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and subjected to single-cell RNA-seq using the inDrop platform. Data was preprocessed using the SEQC pipeline with the Bayesian clustering and normalization method, Biscuit, utilized for data analysis. One of the key findings of the study is that intra-tumoral macrophages have higher numbers, diversity and activation relative to those derived from normal tissues or lymph nodes. Somewhat surprisingly, the authors of this study found a positive correlation between M1 and M2 gene expression, with simultaneous co-expression of markers associated with both activation states. This is in direct contrast to previous results from in vitro model studies, in which one or more agents used to activate macrophages led to one aggregate activation state, either M1 or M2.

A different study, characterizing the heterogeneity of macrophages activation states in gliomas using single-cell RNA-seq made a similar observation on the simultaneous co-expression of M1 and M2 markers in TAMs. This study, conducted by Muller et al., compared marker expression of two macrophage populations – brain-resident microglia, derived from progenitors that migrated to the central nervous system (CNS) and bone marrow-derived monocytes that extravasate through the blood brain barrier and differentiate into macrophages. Similar to Azizi et al., Muller et al., found that macrophages could co-express M1 and M2 markers simultaneously with 66% of tumor associated macrophages co-expressing the canonical M2 marker, IL-10, while also expressing the M1 marker, TNFα. They confirmed their results by using flow cytometry of tumor derived macrophages to show that CD11b+ cells could co-express the M1 co-stimulatory marker, CD86, while also expressing CD206.

Taken together, these studies call the M1/M2 polarization paradigm into question. While, to some extent, supporting the notion that a spectrum of intra-tumoral macrophage activation states exist, the finding of simultaneous M1 and M2 associated markers by macrophages is quite novel. Perhaps historical use of conventional models coupled with aggregate analyses of pooled macrophage populations fail to detect a more widespread phenomenon of M1/M2 marker co-expression in tumors. Further experiments and analysis will be required to confirm these finding. Also, development of model systems that better recapitulate the dual activation states observed in vivo may yield better understanding of how intra-tumoral macrophages will respond to targeted therapeutics. Perhaps most importantly, these findings suggest that activating, or re-activating, the M1 phenotype in tumors may consequently lead to concurrent increased M2 polarization, thereby confounding outcomes.

Using Single Cell RNA-Seq Based Methods to Characterize Macrophage Activation While Incorporating Spatial Localization Within the Tumor

Conventional large-scale characterization of macrophage polarization loses spatial resolution. As such, novel single-cell RNA-seq/bioinformatic approaches are being developed that provide contextual identity. One such technique involves the use of spatial transcriptomics. This method performs unbiased mapping of transcripts over entire tissue sections using spatially barcoded oligo-deoxythymidine microarrays. Individual microarray spots capture transcriptome information from between 10-200 cells and the data is integrated with single cell RNA-seq data to provide both cellular context and transcription data at the single cell level. Using this approach, Moncada and colleagues performed multimodal intersection analysis on patient pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) tumors. One of their key findings was that macrophages seem to adhere to the M1/M2 paradigm and exist in two main subpopulations. The first was a pro-inflammatory M1 subset, which expressed IL-1β, and a second subset, which expressed M2 associated genes like CD163. Likewise, the two subpopulations were differentially localized, with M1 macrophages enriched in the cancerous regions or the stroma, while M2-like macrophages were enriched in the ducts. This data demonstrates that two opposing macrophage polarizations can exist in the same tumor, though their activation state is driven by local micro-environmental conditions. These findings suggest that, fundamentally, treatments may be more effective if they can be selectively targeted to regions where they will make the biggest change. Conversely, systemic treatment with an M1 inducing agent could disrupt essential processes and induce off-target effects.

Derivation of M2 Macrophage Subpopulations

Circulating monocytes are recruited to tumors by the expression of chemoattractants such as CCL2, S100A8 and S100A9. Once monocytes extravasate, they are thought to differentiate into M1 or M2 macrophages based on signals from the tumor microenvironment. In a recent study, Song et al. used single-cell RNA-seq to characterize the differentiation process of extravasating monocytes. 11,485 cells from Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients were used to develop a model of divergent monocyte differentiation into M1 or M2 macrophages. While there were differences between patients, on average, a substantially larger proportion of the recruited monocytes adopted the M2 phenotype. In CD14+ cells derived from in NSCLC samples, expression of polarization markers was stratified along a continuum effectively providing a snapshot of macrophage differentiation states. Work by Song et al., may enable the identification of specific lineage markers that will allow prediction of future differentiation states. They also identified signals from tumor-derived epithelial cells that skew differentiation to the M2 phenotype. By better understanding the process through which tumor resident M2 macrophages are derived, it may be possible to develop specific interventions that prevent accumulation of M2 macrophages.

Open Questions in Macrophage Plasticity During Cancer

Macrophages are a highly plastic innate immune cell subset. Depending on contextual cues from their local environment, they adopt phenotypes across a spectrum of activation states, ranging from pro-inflammatory (M1) to pro-wound healing (M2). Further, macrophages, both individually and in aggregate, can readily transition from one polarization state to the next depending on the most recent signals prevailing in their environment. This plasticity allows them to effectively adapt to the changing environments associated with infection and wound healing and facilitate the return to immune homeostasis. Unfortunately, in the context of cancer, macrophage plasticity is subverted to benefit continued tumor progression. Either by tumor-mediated suppression of M1 polarization or through the evolved lack of pro-inflammatory cues associated with cancer, intra-tumoral macrophages are generally of the pro-wound healing (M2) phenotype. The pro-wound healing properties which would be beneficial during injury repair, such as production of growth factors or promotion of angiogenesis, support continued tumor cell proliferation and tumor expansion.

Recognizing the inherent plasticity of macrophages, several therapeutics have been developed to either reduce the number of intra-tumoral macrophages, thereby reducing the M2 pool, or alter the M1/M2 balance to favor a more pro-inflammatory/anti-tumor response. Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated that increasing M1-associated polarization or effector functions can improve clinical outcomes. This is, perhaps, not surprising since a pro-inflammatory milieu is associated with better patient outcomes for many cancer types. However, to realize the promise of these new treatment modalities, several factors still need to be considered. As we have learned from adaptive immune targeted treatments, activation or checkpoint blockade alone are not likely to be sufficient to generate durable responses in several cancer types. Rather, macrophage targeted therapies will likely require co-treatments targeting the cancer directly (e.g., chemotherapy) or the adaptive immune response (e.g., checkpoint directed therapeutics) or both. Also, for the most part, M1 polarization is thought to reduce tumor growth. However, chronic and persistent local inflammatory conditions are also known to induce tumor formation. A prime example is that increased inflammation associated with obesity can actually increase the likelihood of tumor progression. Several other preclinical models of inflammation, such as colitis-induced colon cancer, have shown that persistent inflammation exacerbates tumor progression. As an illustration, in a high-fat diet induced inflammation model, prostate cancer progression was substantially increased. The rationale is that persistent cell damaging conditions may elicit genetic mutation or cell signaling alterations that foster tumor growth. While the current paradigm is that “more inflammation is better”, there is likely to be an optimal amount of inflammation so as not to induce secondary tumor formation.

Another key question to be addressed, in addition to finding optimal combinations, is how to limit potential engagement of the autoimmune response. Even if a macrophage targeted therapy is successful in generating an anti-tumor response, what are the best ways to ensure it is targeted strictly to the tumor and not surrounding healthy tissues or organ systems? While some delivery systems, like nanoparticles, favor intra-tumoral macrophages, many require systemic delivery, increasing the potential for off-target effects. Potentially compounding the likelihood of off-target effects is reliance upon the bystander effect to generate an anti-tumor response. For example, TLR agonists mimic PAMPs and DAMPs that would be released during infection or injury. However, the resulting immune activation does not target tumor-intrinsic moieties, but rather utilize the destructive potential of pro-inflammatory macrophages to either kill neighboring tumor cells or activate other local immune cells. This lack of tumor specificity opens the greater possibility of non-specific cellular damage or even autoimmunity based on the release of cryptic epitopes.

In addition to questions of developing targeted therapeutics, some basic scientific questions also remain unanswered about macrophages in the tumor environment. While several models have shown, in vitro, that macrophages can move from one polarization state to the next, it is unclear whether this is also true in tumors. For instance, lack of lineage tracing prevents the accurate monitoring of individual intra-tumoral macrophages to determine what happens after treatment. Are macrophages that are present in the tumor prior to treatment adopting another phenotype or is macrophage turnover the cause for an aggregate shift in polarization? Development and use of lineage tracing models would provide a more expansive knowledge of macrophage activation during treatment.

Other questions that have arisen with the advent of single-cell RNA-seq include whether there is a previously unknown macrophage state the possesses elements of both the diametrically opposed M1 and M2 phenotypes. Can both activation states co-exist in one cell or group of cells? What environmental or cell intrinsic factors would allow for dual expression of pro- and anti-inflammatory markers? Do these dual activation macrophages also exist during wound healing or response to pathogenic infection or are they a cancer-specific phenomenon? Are there ways in which these specialized cells can be modeled in vitro? Perhaps most importantly, how do pro-inflammatory inducing treatments affect dual M1/M2 macrophages? Does their presence confound treatments focusing on M1 induction? For instance, if a TLR agonist is utilized for treatment, does it also increase the expression of M2 associated markers, simultaneously activating and inactivating the immune response? Further analysis of single-cell RNA-seq data may answer these questions. However, it may be possible, using flow cytometry or other techniques, to isolate these cells and characterize them using more traditional biochemical methods.

While there is a more comprehensive understanding of macrophage biology now than in the past, development of macrophage targeted therapeutics has trailed behind those promoting the adaptive immune response. Continuing to address the unanswered questions presented here, as well continued testing, both alone and in combination with other therapeutics, may bridge the gap, providing new hope for improved survival of cancer patients.

Author Contributions

TR - wrote the manuscript, prepared figures, and edited final work. NP-D - wrote manuscript and edited final work. PG - wrote manuscript. EU - conceptualized the work, wrote manuscript, and edited final work. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

NIH/NCI K22 Transition Career Development Award (1 K22 CA237742-01) - Funding for EU, and University of Alabama at Birmingham Development Funds - Funding for EU.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References 289

  1. 1.

    Sompayrac L. How the Immune System Works. Wiley-Blackwell (2016 ).

    Not in our library

  2. 2.

    Wang J Wakeham J Harkness R Xing Z. Macrophages are a Significant Source of Type 1 Cytokines During Mycobacterial Infection. J Clin Invest (1999 ) 103(7):1023–9.

    Not in our library10.1172/jci6224

  3. 3.

    Verreck FAW De Boer T Langenberg DML Hoeve MA Kramer M Vaisberg E. Human IL-23-producing Type 1 Macrophages Promote But IL-10-producing Type 2 Macrophages Subvert Immunity to (Myco)Bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2004 ) 101(13):4560–5.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0400983101

  4. 4.

    Verreck FAW de Boer T Langenberg DML van der Zanden L Ottenhoff THM. Phenotypic and Functional Profiling of Human Proinflammatory Type-1 and Anti-Inflammatory Type-2 Macrophages in Response to Microbial Antigens and IFN-γ- and CD40L-mediated Costimulation. J Leuk Biol (2006 ) 79(2):285–93.

    Not in our library10.1189/jlb.0105015

  5. 5.

    Cocco RE Ucker DS. Distinct Modes of Macrophage Recognition for Apoptotic and Necrotic Cells are Not Specified Exclusively by Phosphatidylserine Exposure. Mol Biol Cell (2001 ) 12(4):919–30.

    Not in our library10.1091/mbc.12.4.919

  6. 6.
    The immune response to secondary necrotic cells · 2017
    No notice
  7. 7.

    Atanasov G Dietel C Feldbrügge L Benzing C Krenzien F Brandl A. Tumor Necrosis and Infiltrating Macrophages Predict Survival After Curative Resection for Cholangiocarcinoma. Oncoimmunology (2017 ) 6(8):e1331806–e1331806.

    Not in our library10.1080/2162402x.2017.1331806

  8. 8.

    Cortés M Sanchez-Moral L de Barrios O Fernández-Aceñero MJ Martínez-Campanario M Esteve-Codina A. Tumor-Associated Macrophages (Tams) Depend on ZEB1 for Their Cancer-Promoting Roles. EMBO J (2017 ) 36(22):3336–55.

    Not in our library10.15252/embj.201797345

  9. 9.
    Cancer-associated fibroblasts enhance tumor-associated macrophages enrichment and suppress NK cells function in colorectal cancer · 2019
    No notice
  10. 10.

    Polverini PJ Cotran PS Gimbrone MA, Jr. Unanue ER. Activated Macrophages Induce Vascular Proliferation. Nature (1977 ) 269(5631):804–6.

    Not in our library10.1038/269804a0

  11. 11.

    Danon D Kowatch MA Roth GS. Promotion of Wound Repair in Old Mice by Local Injection of Macrophages. Proc Natl Acad Sci (1989 ) 86(6):2018–20.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.86.6.2018

  12. 12.

    Hunt TK Knighton DR Thakral KK Goodson WH. 3rd, and Andrews, W.s., Studies on Inflammation and Wound Healing: Angiogenesis and Collagen Synthesis Stimulated In Vivo by Resident and Activated Wound Macrophages. Surgery (1984 ) 96(1):48–54.

    Not in our library

  13. 13.

    Guth AM Janssen WJ Bosio CM Crouch EC Henson PM Dow SW. Lung Environment Determines Unique Phenotype of Alveolar Macrophages. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol (2009 ) 296(6):L936–46.

    Not in our library10.1152/ajplung.90625.2008

  14. 14.

    Hashimoto D Chow A Noizat C Teo P Beasley, Mary B Leboeuf M. Tissue-Resident Macrophages Self-Maintain Locally Throughout Adult Life With Minimal Contribution From Circulating Monocytes. Immunity (2013 ) 38(4):792–804.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2013.04.004

  15. 15.

    Heidt T Courties G Dutta P Sager HB Sebas M Iwamoto Y. Differential Contribution of Monocytes to Heart Macrophages in Steady-State and After Myocardial Infarction. Circ Res (2014 ) 115(2):284–95.

    Not in our library10.1161/circresaha.115.303567

  16. 16.

    Lavin Y Winter D Blecher-Gonen R David E Keren-Shaul H Merad M. Tissue-Resident Macrophage Enhancer Landscapes are Shaped by the Local Microenvironment. Cell (2014 ) 159(6):1312–26.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2014.11.018

  17. 17.

    Dvorak HF. Tumors: Wounds That do Not Heal-Redux. Cancer Immunol Res (2015 ) 3(1):1–11.

    Not in our library10.1158/2326-6066.cir-14-0209

  18. 18.

    Innes JRM Ulland BM Valerio MG Petrucelli L Fishbein L Hart ER. Bioassay of Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals for Tumorigenicity in Mice: A Preliminary Note23. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst (1969 ) 42(6):1101–14.

    Not in our library10.1093/jnci/42.6.1101

  19. 19.

    Green AES Findley GB Jr Klenk KF Wilson WM Mo T. The Ultraviolet Dose Dependence of Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer Incidence. Photochem Photobiol (1976 ) 24(4):353–62.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1751-1097.1976.tb06836.x

  20. 20.

    Baba AI Câtoi C. Carcinogenesis. In: Comparative Oncology. Bucharest (RO): The Publishing House of the Romanian Academy (2007 ).

    Not in our library

  21. 21.

    Yabe Y Trentin JJ Taylor G. Cancer Induction in Hamsters by Human Type 12 Adenovirus. Effect of Age and of Virus Dose. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med (1962 ) 111(2):343–4.

    Not in our library10.3181/00379727-111-27786

  22. 22.

    Corso G Intra M Trentin C Veronesi P Galimberti V. CDH1 Germline Mutations and Hereditary Lobular Breast Cancer. Fam Cancer (2016 ) 15(2):215–9.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10689-016-9869-5

  23. 23.

    Rusak B Kluźniak W Wokołorczykv D Stempa K Kashyap A Gronwald J. Inherited NBN Mutations and Prostate Cancer Risk and Survival. Cancer Res Treat (2019 ) 51(3):1180–7.

    Not in our library10.4143/crt.2018.532

  24. 24.

    Fishbein A Wang W Yang H Yang J Hallisey VM Deng J. Resolution of Eicosanoid/Cytokine Storm Prevents Carcinogen and Inflammation-Initiated Hepatocellular Cancer Progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2020 ) 117(35):21576–87.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.2007412117

  25. 25.

    Ntp Carcinogenesis Bioassay of Melamine (Cas No. 108-78-1) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Feed Study). Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser (1983 ) 245:1–171.

    Not in our library

  26. 26.

    Saffiotti U Cefis F Kolb LH. A Method for the Experimental Induction of Bronchogenic Carcinoma. Cancer Res (1968 ) 28(1):104–24.

    Not in our library10.1097/00043764-196902000-00016

  27. 27.

    Sherr CJ. Principles of Tumor Suppression. Cell (2004 ) 116(2):235–46.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0092-8674(03)01075-4

  28. 28.

    Solari JIG Filippi-Chiela E Pilar ES Nunes V Gonzalez EA Figueiró F. Damage-Associated Molecular Patterns (Damps) Related to Immunogenic Cell Death are Differentially Triggered by Clinically Relevant Chemotherapeutics in Lung Adenocarcinoma Cells. BMC Cancer (2020 ) 20(1):474.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12885-020-06964-5

  29. 29.
    Antigen presentation and tumor immunogenicity in cancer immunotherapy response prediction · 2019
    No notice
  30. 30.

    McKean DJ Infante AJ Nilson A Kimoto M Fathman CG Walker E. Major Histocompatibility Complex-Restricted Antigen Presentation to Antigen-Reactive T Cells by B Lymphocyte Tumor Cells. J Exp Med (1981 ) 154(5):1419–31.

    Not in our library10.1084/jem.154.5.1419

  31. 31.

    Shimizu J Suda T Yoshioka T Kosugi A Fujiwara H Hamaoka T. Induction of Tumor-Specific In Vivo Protective Immunity by Immunization With Tumor Antigen-Pulsed Antigen-Presenting Cells. J Immunol (1989 ) 142(3):1053–9.

    Not in our library10.1097/00008390-199309002-00068

  32. 32.

    Vitale LA Thomas LJ He L-Z O’Neill T Widger J Crocker A. Development of CDX-1140, an Agonist CD40 Antibody for Cancer Immunotherapy. Cancer Immunol Immunother (2019 ) 68(2):233–45.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00262-018-2267-0

  33. 33.

    Slavik JM Hutchcroft JE Bierer BE. CD80 and CD86 are Not Equivalent in Their Ability to Induce the Tyrosine Phosphorylation of CD28. J Biol Chem (1999 ) 274(5):3116–24.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.274.5.3116

  34. 34.

    Hoves S Ooi C-H Wolter C Sade H Bissinger S Schmittnaegel M. Rapid Activation of Tumor-Associated Macrophages Boosts Preexisting Tumor Immunity. J Exp Med (2018 ) 215(3):859–76.

    Not in our library10.1084/jem.20171440

  35. 35.

    Dunn GP Old LJ Schreiber RD. The Three Es of Cancer Immunoediting. Annu Rev Immunol (2004 ) 22:329–60.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev.immunol.22.012703.104803

  36. 36.

    Spranger S Spaapen RM Zha Y Williams J Meng Y Ha TT. Up-Regulation of PD-L1, IDO, and T(regs) in the Melanoma Tumor Microenvironment is Driven by CD8(+) T Cells. Sci Trans Med (2013 ) 5(200):200ra116–200ra116.

    Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.3006504

  37. 37.

    Shankaran V Ikeda H Bruce AT White JM Swanson PE Old LJ. Ifngamma and Lymphocytes Prevent Primary Tumour Development and Shape Tumour Immunogenicity. Nature (2001 ) 410(6832):1107–11.

    Not in our library10.1038/35074122

  38. 38.
    Crosstalk between hepatic tumor cells and macrophages via Wnt/β-catenin signaling promotes M2-like macrophage polarization and reinforces tumor malignant behaviors · 2018
    No notice
  39. 39.

    Fang W Ye L Shen L Cai J Huang F Wei Q. Tumor-Associated Macrophages Promote the Metastatic Potential of Thyroid Papillary Cancer by Releasing CXCL8. Carcinogenesis (2014 ) 35(8):1780–7.

    Not in our library10.1093/carcin/bgu060

  40. 40.
    MCT-1/miR-34a/IL-6/IL-6R signaling axis promotes EMT progression, cancer stemness and M2 macrophage polarization in triple-negative breast cancer · 2019
    No notice
  41. 41.

    Yin Z Ma T Lin Y Lu X Zhang C Chen S. Il-6/STAT3 Pathway Intermediates M1/M2 Macrophage Polarization During the Development of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Cell Biochem (2018 ) 119(11):9419–32.

    Not in our library10.1002/jcb.27259

  42. 42.

    Lacal PM Graziani G. Therapeutic Implication of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-1 (VEGFR-1) Targeting in Cancer Cells and Tumor Microenvironment by Competitive and non-Competitive Inhibitors. Pharmacol Res (2018 ) 136:97–107.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.phrs.2018.08.023

  43. 43.

    Lai Y-S Wahyuningtyas R Aui S-P Chang K-T. Autocrine VEGF Signalling on M2 Macrophages Regulates PD-L1 Expression for Immunomodulation of T Cells. J Cell Mol Med (2019 ) 23(2):1257–67.

    Not in our library10.1111/jcmm.14027

  44. 44.

    Yang F Li W-B Qu Y-W Gao J-X Tang Y-S Wang D-J. Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells Induce M2 Microglia Polarization Through PDGF-AA/MANF Signaling. World J Stem Cells (2020 ) 12(7):633–58.

    Not in our library10.4252/wjsc.v12.i7.633

  45. 45.

    O’Meara T Marczyk M Qing T Yaghoobi V Blenman K Cole K. Immunological Differences Between Immune-Rich Estrogen Receptor–Positive and Immune-Rich Triple-Negative Breast Cancers. JCO Precis Oncol (2020 ) 4):767–79.

    Not in our library10.1200/po.19.00350

  46. 46.
    Human breast cancer cells educate macrophages toward the M2 activation status · 2015
    No notice
  47. 47.

    López-Janeiro Á Padilla-Ansala C de Andrea CE Hardisson D Melero I. Prognostic Value of Macrophage Polarization Markers in Epithelial Neoplasms and Melanoma. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Mod Pathol (2020 ) 33(8):1458–65.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41379-020-0534-z

  48. 48.
    Distribution and prognostic impact of microglia/macrophage subpopulations in gliomas · 2019
    No notice
  49. 49.

    Zhao Y Ge X Xu X Yu S Wang J Sun L. Prognostic Value and Clinicopathological Roles of Phenotypes of Tumour-Associated Macrophages in Colorectal Cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (2019 ) 145(12):3005–19.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00432-019-03041-8

  50. 50.

    Saha D Martuza RL Rabkin SD. Macrophage Polarization Contributes to Glioblastoma Eradication by Combination Immunovirotherapy and Immune Checkpoint Blockade. Cancer Cell (2017 ) 32(2):253–267.e5.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2017.07.006

  51. 51.

    Ubil E Caskey L Holtzhausen A Hunter D Story C Earp HS. Tumor-Secreted Pros1 Inhibits Macrophage M1 Polarization to Reduce Antitumor Immune Response. J Clin Invest (2018 ) 128(6):2356–69.

    Not in our library10.1172/jci97354

  52. 52.

    Wu JY Huang TW Hsieh YT Wang YF Yen CC Lee GL. Cancer-Derived Succinate Promotes Macrophage Polarization and Cancer Metastasis Via Succinate Receptor. Mol Cell (2020 ) 77(2):213–27.e5.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2019.10.023

  53. 53.

    Hori K Ehrke MJ Mace K Maccubbin D Doyle MJ Otsuka Y. Effect of Recombinant Human Tumor Necrosis Factor on the Induction of Murine Macrophage Tumoricidal Activity. Cancer Res (1987 ) 47(11):2793–8.

    Not in our library

  54. 54.

    Fauskanger M Haabeth OAW Skjeldal FM Bogen B Tveita AA. Tumor Killing by CD4+ T Cells Is Mediated Via Induction of Inducible Nitric Oxide Synthase-Dependent Macrophage Cytotoxicity. Front Immunol (2018 ) 9(1684):1–13.

    Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2018.01684

  55. 55.

    Feng M Chen JY Weissman-Tsukamoto R Volkmer J-P Ho PY McKenna KM. Macrophages Eat Cancer Cells Using Their Own Calreticulin as a Guide: Roles of TLR and Btk. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2015 ) 112(7):2145.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1424907112

  56. 56.

    Fauconneau B Petegnief V Sanfeliu C Piriou A Planas AM. Induction of Heat Shock Proteins (Hsps) by Sodium Arsenite in Cultured Astrocytes and Reduction of Hydrogen Peroxide-Induced Cell Death. J Neurochem (2002 ) 83(6):1338–48.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1471-4159.2002.01230.x

  57. 57.

    Park YH Seo JH Park J-H Lee HS Kim K-W. Hsp70 Acetylation Prevents Caspase-Dependent/Independent Apoptosis and Autophagic Cell Death in Cancer Cells. Int J Oncol (2017 ) 51(2):573–8.

    Not in our library10.3892/ijo.2017.4039

  58. 58.

    Son K-J Choi KR Ryu C-K Lee SJ Kim HJ Lee H. Induction of Immunogenic Cell Death of Tumors by Newly Synthesized Heterocyclic Quinone Derivative. PloS One (2017 ) 12(3):e0173121–e0173121.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0173121

  59. 59.

    Dong XD Ito N Lotze MT DeMarco RA Popovic P Shand SH. High Mobility Group Box I (Hmgb1) Release From Tumor Cells After Treatment: Implications for Development of Targeted Chemoimmunotherapy. J Immunother (2007 ) 30(6):596–606.

    Not in our library10.1097/cji.0b013e31804efc76

  60. 60.

    Zhang XY Guo ZQ Ji SQ Zhang M Jiang N Li XS. Small Interfering RNA Targeting HMGN5 Induces Apoptosis Via Modulation of a Mitochondrial Pathway and Bcl-2 Family Proteins in Prostate Cancer Cells. Asian J Androl (2012 ) 14(3):487–92.

    Not in our library10.1038/aja.2012.18

  61. 61.

    Bell CW Jiang W Charles F. Reich I Pisetsky DS. The Extracellular Release of HMGB1 During Apoptotic Cell Death. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol (2006 ) 291(6):C1318–25.

    Not in our library10.1152/ajpcell.00616.2005

  62. 62.

    Tang D Loze MT Zeh HJ Kang R. The Redox Protein HMGB1 Regulates Cell Death and Survival in Cancer Treatment. Autophagy (2010 ) 6(8):1181–3.

    Not in our library10.4161/auto.6.8.13367

  63. 63.

    Dai Y Bae K Pampo C Siemann DW. Impact of the Small Molecule Met Inhibitor BMS-777607 on the Metastatic Process in a Rodent Tumor Model With Constitutive c-Met Activation. Clin Exp Metastasis (2012 ) 29(3):253–61.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10585-011-9447-z

  64. 64.

    Elkon KB. Review: Cell Death, Nucleic Acids, and Immunity: Inflammation Beyond the Grave. Arthritis Rheum (2018 ) 70(6):805–16.

    Not in our library10.1002/art.40452

  65. 65.

    Maelfait J Liverpool L Rehwinkel J. Nucleic Acid Sensors and Programmed Cell Death. J Mol Biol (2020 ) 432(2):552–68.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jmb.2019.11.016

  66. 66.

    He M Bianchi ME Coleman TR Tracey KJ Al-Abed Y. Exploring the Biological Functional Mechanism of the HMGB1/TLR4/MD-2 Complex by Surface Plasmon Resonance. Mol Med (2018 ) 24(1):21.

    Not in our library10.1186/s10020-018-0030-9

  67. 67.

    Petrillo M Zannoni GF Martinelli E Pedone Anchora L Ferrandina G Tropeano G. Polarisation of Tumor-Associated Macrophages Toward M2 Phenotype Correlates With Poor Response to Chemoradiation and Reduced Survival in Patients With Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer. PloS One (2015 ) 10(9):e0136654.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0136654

  68. 68.
    CCL18 from tumor-associated macrophages promotes angiogenesis in breast cancer · 2015
    No notice
  69. 69.
    Live imaging of wound angiogenesis reveals macrophage orchestrated vessel sprouting and regression · 2018
    No notice
  70. 70.
    Progranulin induces immune escape in breast cancer via up-regulating PD-L1 expression on tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and promoting CD8+ T cell exclusion · 2021
    Corrected
  71. 71.
    High PD-L1 expression was associated with poor prognosis in 870 Chinese patients with breast cancer · 2015
    No notice
  72. 72.

    Rosenthal R Cadieux EL Salgado R Bakir MA Moore DA Hiley CT. Neoantigen-Directed Immune Escape in Lung Cancer Evolution. Nature (2019 ) 567(7749):479–85.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-019-1032-7

  73. 73.

    Schoppmann SF Birner P Stöckl J Kalt R Ullrich R Caucig C. Tumor-Associated Macrophages Express Lymphatic Endothelial Growth Factors and are Related to Peritumoral Lymphangiogenesis. Am J Pathol (2002 ) 161(3):947–56.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0002-9440(10)64255-1

  74. 74.

    Kadioglu E De Palma M. Cancer Metastasis: Perivascular Macrophages Under Watch. Cancer Discovery (2015 ) 5(9):906–8.

    Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-15-0819

  75. 75.

    Wang J Cao Z Zhang XM Nakamura M Sun M Hartman J. Novel Mechanism of Macrophage-Mediated Metastasis Revealed in a Zebrafish Model of Tumor Development. Cancer Res (2015 ) 75(2):306–15.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-14-2819

  76. 76.

    Yamauchi K Yang M Jiang P Xu M Yamamoto N Tsuchiya H. Development of Real-time Subcellular Dynamic Multicolor Imaging of Cancer-Cell Trafficking in Live Mice With a Variable-Magnification Whole-Mouse Imaging System. Cancer Res (2006 ) 66(8):4208–14.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-05-3927

  77. 77.
    Intratumoral macrophages contribute to epithelial-mesenchymal transition in solid tumors · 2012
    No notice
  78. 78.

    Fu X-T Dai Z Song K Zhang Z-J Zhou Z-J Zhou S-L. Macrophage-Secreted IL-8 Induces Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cells by Activating the JAK2/STAT3/Snail Pathway. Int J Oncol (2015 ) 46(2):587–96.

    Not in our library10.3892/ijo.2014.2761

  79. 79.

    Hughes R Qian B-Z Rowan C Muthana M Keklikoglou I Olson OC. Perivascular M2 Macrophages Stimulate Tumor Relapse After Chemotherapy. Cancer Res (2015 ) 75(17):3479–91.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-14-3587

  80. 80.

    Ngambenjawong C Gustafson HH Pun SH. Progress in Tumor-Associated Macrophage (TAM)-Targeted Therapeutics. Adv Drug Deliv Rev (2017 ) 114:206–21.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2017.04.010

  81. 81.

    Nywening TM Wang-Gillam A Sanford DE Belt BA Panni RZ Cusworth BM. Targeting Tumour-Associated Macrophages With CCR2 Inhibition in Combination With FOLFIRINOX in Patients With Borderline Resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Single-Centre, Open-Label, Dose-Finding, non-Randomised, Phase 1b Trial. Lancet Oncol (2016 ) 17(5):651–62.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(16)00078-4

  82. 82.

    Flores-Toro JA Luo D Gopinath A Sarkisian MR Campbell JJ Charo IF. CCR2 Inhibition Reduces Tumor Myeloid Cells and Unmasks a Checkpoint Inhibitor Effect to Slow Progression of Resistant Murine Gliomas. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2020 ) 117(2):1129–38.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1910856117

  83. 83.

    Teng K-Y Han J Zhang X Hsu S-H He S Wani NA. Blocking the CCL2–CCR2 Axis Using Ccl2-Neutralizing Antibody is an Effective Therapy for Hepatocellular Cancer in a Mouse Model. Mol Cancer Ther (2017 ) 16(2):312–22.

    Not in our library10.1158/1535-7163.mct-16-0124

  84. 84.
    Inhibition of the CCL2 receptor, CCR2, enhances tumor response to immune checkpoint therapy · 2020
    No notice
  85. 85.

    Barkal AA Brewer RE Markovic M Kowarsky M Barkal SA Zaro BW. CD24 Signalling Through Macrophage Siglec-10 is a Target for Cancer Immunotherapy. Nature (2019 ) 572(7769):392–6.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-019-1456-0

  86. 86.

    Liu H Hai L Tian J Xiang J Fan Y Zhang H. Anti-CD24 Neutralizing Antibody Exacerbates Concanavalin a-Induced Acute Liver Injury in Mice Via Liver M1 Macrophages. Immunol Lett (2017 ) 181:87–93.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.imlet.2016.11.016

  87. 87.

    Allard B Longhi MS Robson SC Stagg J. The Ectonucleotidases CD39 and CD73: Novel Checkpoint Inhibitor Targets. Immunol Rev (2017 ) 276(1):121–44.

    Not in our library10.1111/imr.12528

  88. 88.

    Perrot I Michaud H-A Giraudon-Paoli M Augier S Docquier A Gros L. Blocking Antibodies Targeting the CD39/CD73 Immunosuppressive Pathway Unleash Immune Responses in Combination Cancer Therapies. Cell Rep (2019 ) 27(8):2411–25.e9.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2019.04.091

  89. 89.

    Hayes GM Cairns B Levashova Z Chinn L Perez M Theunissen JW. CD39 is a Promising Therapeutic Antibody Target for the Treatment of Soft Tissue Sarcoma. Am J Transl Res (2015 ) 7(6):1181–8.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2017.10.005

  90. 90.

    Vonderheide RH Flaherty KT Khalil M Stumacher MS Bajor DL Hutnick NA. Clinical Activity and Immune Modulation in Cancer Patients Treated With CP-870,893, a Novel CD40 Agonist Monoclonal Antibody. J Clin Oncol (2007 ) 25(7):876–83.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2006.08.3311

  91. 91.

    Bensinger W Maziarz RT Jagannath S Spencer A Durrant S Becker PS. A Phase 1 Study of Lucatumumab, a Fully Human anti-CD40 Antagonist Monoclonal Antibody Administered Intravenously to Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma. Br J Haematol (2012 ) 159(1):58–66.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2141.2012.09251.x

  92. 92.

    Byrd JC Kipps TJ Flinn IW Cooper M Odenike O Bendiske J. Phase I Study of the anti-CD40 Humanized Monoclonal Antibody Lucatumumab (HCD122) in Relapsed Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma (2012 ) 53(11):2136–42.

    Not in our library10.3109/10428194.2012.681655

  93. 93.

    Johnson P Challis R Chowdhury F Gao Y Harvey M Geldart T. Clinical and Biological Effects of an Agonist Anti-CD40 Antibody: A Cancer Research Uk Phase I Study. Clin Cancer Res (2015 ) 21(6):1321–8.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-2355

  94. 94.

    Tseng D Volkmer JP Willingham SB Contreras-Trujillo H Fathman JW Fernhoff NB. Anti-CD47 Antibody-Mediated Phagocytosis of Cancer by Macrophages Primes an Effective Antitumor T-cell Response. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2013 ) 110(27):11103–8.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1305569110

  95. 95.

    Willingham SB Volkmer JP Gentles AJ Sahoo D Dalerba P Mitra SS. The CD47-signal Regulatory Protein Alpha (Sirpa) Interaction is a Therapeutic Target for Human Solid Tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2012 ) 109(17):6662–7.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-07-1443

  96. 96.
    Is CD47 an innate immune checkpoint for tumor evasion? · 2017
    No notice
  97. 97.

    Antonioli L Yegutkin GG Pacher P Blandizzi C Haskó G. Anti-CD73 in Cancer Immunotherapy: Awakening New Opportunities. Trends Cancer (2016 ) 2(2):95–109.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.trecan.2016.01.003

  98. 98.

    Tap WD Gelderblom H Palmerini E Desai J Bauer S Blay J-Y. Pexidartinib Versus Placebo for Advanced Tenosynovial Giant Cell Tumour (ENLIVEN): A Randomised Phase 3 Trial. Lancet (2019 ) 394(10197):478–87.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30764-0

  99. 99.

    Butowski N Colman H De Groot JF Omuro AM Nayak L Wen PY. Orally Administered Colony Stimulating Factor 1 Receptor Inhibitor PLX3397 in Recurrent Glioblastoma: An Ivy Foundation Early Phase Clinical Trials Consortium Phase II Study. Neuro Oncol (2016 ) 18(4):557–64.

    Not in our library10.1093/neuonc/nov245

  100. 100.

    Gomez-Roca CA Italiano A Le Tourneau C Cassier PA Toulmonde M D’Angelo SP. Phase I Study of Emactuzumab Single Agent or in Combination With Paclitaxel in Patients With Advanced/Metastatic Solid Tumors Reveals Depletion of Immunosuppressive M2-like Macrophages. Ann Oncol (2019 ) 30(8):1381–92.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdz163

  101. 101.

    Papadopoulos KP Gluck L Martin LP Olszanski AJ Tolcher AW Ngarmchamnanrith G. First-in-Human Study of AMG 820, a Monoclonal Anti-Colony-Stimulating Factor 1 Receptor Antibody, in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors. Clin Cancer Res (2017 ) 23(19):5703–10.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-16-3261

  102. 102.

    Felip E Brunsvig P Vinolas N Aix SP Costa EC Gomez MD. A Phase II Study of Bemcentinib (BGB324), a First-in-Class Highly Selective AXL Inhibitor, With Pembrolizumab in Pts With Advanced NSCLC: OS for Stage I and Preliminary Stage II Efficacy. J Clin Oncol (2019 ) 37(15_suppl):9098–8.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.9098

  103. 103.

    Lorens J Arce-Lara CE Arriola E Brunsvig P Costa EC Domine M. Phase II Open-Label, Multi-Centre Study of Bemcentinib (BGB324), a First-in-Class Selective AXL Inhibitor, in Combination With Pembrolizumab in Patients With Advanced NSCLC. J Clin Oncol (2018 ) 36(15_suppl):3078–8.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2018.36.15_suppl.3078

  104. 104.

    Holland SJ Pan A Franci C Hu Y Chang B Li W. R428, a Selective Small Molecule Inhibitor of Axl Kinase, Blocks Tumor Spread and Prolongs Survival in Models of Metastatic Breast Cancer. Cancer Res (2010 ) 70(4):1544–54.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-09-2997

  105. 105.

    Holtzhausen A Harris W Ubil E Hunter DM Zhao J Zhang Y. Tam Family Receptor Kinase Inhibition Reverses Mdsc-Mediated Suppression and Augments Anti-Pd-1 Therapy in Melanoma. Cancer Immunol Res (2019 ) 7(10):1672–86.

    Not in our library10.1158/2326-6066.cir-19-0008

  106. 106.

    Kasikara C Davra V Calianese D Geng K Spires TE Quigley M. Pan-Tam Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Bms-777607 Enhances Anti–PD-1 Mab Efficacy in a Murine Model of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Cancer Res (2019 ) 79(10):2669.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-18-2614

  107. 107.

    Delanian S Chatel C Porcher R Depondt J Lefaix JL. Complete Restoration of Refractory Mandibular Osteoradionecrosis by Prolonged Treatment With a Pentoxifylline-Tocopherol-Clodronate Combination (PENTOCLO): A Phase II Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2011 ) 80(3):832–9.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.03.029

  108. 108.

    Delanian SE Lenglet T Maisonobe T Resche-Rigon M Pradat PF. Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial Combining Pentoxifylline-Tocopherol and Clodronate in the Treatment of Radiation-Induced Plexopathy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2020 ) 107(1):154–62.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.01.002

  109. 109.

    Ha TC Li H. Meta-Analysis of Clodronate and Breast Cancer Survival. Br J Cancer (2007 ) 96(12):1796–801.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.bjc.6603661

  110. 110.

    Opperman KS Vandyke K Clark KC Coulter EA Hewett DR Mrozik KM. Clodronate-Liposome Mediated Macrophage Depletion Abrogates Multiple Myeloma Tumor Establishment In Vivo. Neoplasia (2019 ) 21(8):777–87.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.neo.2019.05.006

  111. 111.

    Francian A Mann K Kullberg M. Complement C3-dependent Uptake of Targeted Liposomes Into Human Macrophages, B Cells, Dendritic Cells, Neutrophils, and Mdscs. Int J Nanomed (2017 ) 12:5149–61.

    Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s138787

  112. 112.

    Milas L Mason KA Ariga H Hunter N Neal R Valdecanas D. Cpg Oligodeoxynucleotide Enhances Tumor Response to Radiation. Cancer Res (2004 ) 64(15):5074–7.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-04-0926

  113. 113.

    Otsuka T Nishida S Hamaguchi M Shibahara T Shiroyama T Kimura K. Phase I Study of CpG ODN(K3), a Novel Toll-Like Receptor 9 Agonist, for Advanced Lung Cancer: Interim Analyses of Safety and Immunity in Subcutaneous Injection Cohort. J Clin Oncol (2019 ) 37(8_suppl):126–6.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2019.37.8_suppl.126

  114. 114.

    Sommariva M de Cesare M Meini A Cataldo A Zaffaroni N Tagliabue E. High Efficacy of CpG-ODN, Cetuximab and Cisplatin Combination for Very Advanced Ovarian Xenograft Tumors. J Trans Med (2013 ) 11(1):25.

    Not in our library10.1186/1479-5876-11-25

  115. 115.

    Finn RS Bengala C Ibrahim N Roché H Sparano J Strauss LC. Dasatinib as a Single Agent in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Results of an Open-Label Phase 2 Study. Clin Cancer Res (2011 ) 17(21):6905–13.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-11-0288

  116. 116.

    Twardowski PW Beumer JH Chen CS Kraft AS Chatta GS Mitsuhashi M. A Phase II Trial of Dasatinib in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated Previously With Chemotherapy. Anti-cancer Drugs (2013 ) 24(7):743–53.

    Not in our library10.1097/cad.0b013e328361feb0

  117. 117.

    Zhang M Tian J Wang R Song M Zhao R Chen H. Dasatinib Inhibits Lung Cancer Cell Growth and Patient Derived Tumor Growth in Mice by Targeting Limk1. Front Cell Dev Biol (2020 ) 8(1361):4159–8.

    Not in our library10.3389/fcell.2020.556532

  118. 118.
    Targeting Macrophages as a Potential Therapeutic Intervention: Impact on Inflammatory Diseases and Cancer · 2018
    No notice
  119. 119.

    Zanganeh S Hutter G Spitler R Lenkov O Mahmoudi M Shaw A. Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Inhibit Tumour Growth by Inducing Pro-Inflammatory Macrophage Polarization in Tumour Tissues. Nat Nanotechnol (2016 ) 11(11):986–94.

    Not in our library10.1038/nnano.2016.168

  120. 120.
    Introduction to metallic nanoparticles · 2010
    No notice
  121. 121.

    Grohmann U Belladonna ML Vacca C Bianchi R Fallarino F Orabona C. Positive Regulatory Role of IL-12 in Macrophages and Modulation by IFN-γ. J Immunol (2001 ) 167(1):221.

    Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.167.1.221

  122. 122.
    A phase I clinical trial of adoptive T cell therapy using IL-12 secreting MUC-16ecto directed chimeric antigen receptors for recurrent ovarian cancer · 2015
    No notice
  123. 123.

    Sands BE Sandborn WJ Panaccione R O’Brien CD Zhang H Johanns J. Ustekinumab as Induction and Maintenance Therapy for Ulcerative Colitis. N Engl J Med (2019 ) 381(13):1201–14.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1900750

  124. 124.

    Yao Z Zhang J Zhang B Liang G Chen X Yao F. Imatinib Prevents Lung Cancer Metastasis by Inhibiting M2-like Polarization of Macrophages. Pharmacol Res (2018 ) 133:121–31.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.phrs.2018.05.002

  125. 125.

    Blay J-Y von Mehren M. Nilotinib: A Novel, Selective Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor. Semin Oncol (2011 ) 38 Suppl 1(0 1):S3–9.

    Not in our library10.1053/j.seminoncol.2011.01.016

  126. 126.

    Pachman DR Barton DL Clayton AC McGovern RM Jefferies JA Novotny PJ. Randomized Clinical Trial of Imiquimod: An Adjunct to Treating Cervical Dysplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol (2012 ) 206(1):42.e1–7.

    Not in our library10.1158/1541-7786.mcr-13-0682

  127. 127.

    Rozenblit M Hendrickx W Heguy A Chiriboga L Loomis C Ray K. Transcriptomic Profiles Conducive to Immune-Mediated Tumor Rejection in Human Breast Cancer Skin Metastases Treated With Imiquimod. Sci Rep (2019 ) 9(1):8572.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-019-42784-9

  128. 128.

    Salazar LG Lu H Reichow JL Childs JS Coveler AL Higgins DM. Topical Imiquimod Plus Nab-paclitaxel for Breast Cancer Cutaneous Metastases: A Phase 2 Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol (2017 ) 3(7):969–73.

    Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6007

  129. 129.
    ATP in the tumour microenvironment drives expression of nfP2X7, a key mediator of cancer cell survival · 2018
    No notice
  130. 130.
    The P2X7 receptor modulates immune cells infiltration, ectonucleotidases expression and extracellular ATP levels in the tumor microenvironment · 2019
    No notice
  131. 131.
    P2X7 Receptor Antagonism as a Potential Therapy in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis · 2020
    Not checked
  132. 132.

    Brown JR Walker SR Heppler LN Tyekucheva S Nelson EA Klitgaard J. Targeting Constitutively Active STAT3 in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Clinical Trial of the STAT3 Inhibitor Pyrimethamine With Pharmacodynamic Analyses. Am J Hematol (2020 ) 4:1–15.

    Not in our library10.1002/ajh.26084

  133. 133.

    Hong D Kurzrock R Kim Y Woessner R Younes A Nemunaitis J. AZD9150, a Next-Generation Antisense Oligonucleotide Inhibitor of STAT3 With Early Evidence of Clinical Activity in Lymphoma and Lung Cancer. Sci Trans Med (2015 ) 7(314):314ra185–314ra185.

    Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.aac5272

  134. 134.

    Wang S Lin Y Xiong X Wang L Guo Y Chen Y. Low-Dose Metformin Reprograms the Tumor Immune Microenvironment in Human Esophageal Cancer: Results of a Phase Ii Clinical Trial. Clin Cancer Res (2020 ) 26(18):4921–32.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-20-0113

  135. 135.

    Mendoza-Rodríguez MG Sánchez-Barrera CÁ Callejas BE García-Castillo V Beristain-Terrazas DL Delgado-Buenrostro NL. Use of STAT6 Phosphorylation Inhibitor and Trimethylglycine as New Adjuvant Therapies for 5-Fluorouracil in Colitis-Associated Tumorigenesis. Int J Mol Sci (2020 ) 21(6):2130.

    Not in our library10.3390/ijms21062130

  136. 136.

    Tariq M Zhang JQ Liang GK He QJ Ding L Yang B. Gefitinib Inhibits M2-like Polarization of Tumor-Associated Macrophages in Lewis Lung Cancer by Targeting the STAT6 Signaling Pathway. Acta Pharmacol Sin (2017 ) 38(11):1501–11.

    Not in our library10.1038/aps.2017.124

  137. 137.

    Xiao H Guo Y Li B Li X Wang Y Han S. M2-Like Tumor-Associated Macrophage-Targeted Codelivery of STAT6 Inhibitor and Ikkβ Sirna Induces M2-to-M1 Repolarization for Cancer Immunotherapy With Low Immune Side Effects. ACS Cent Sci (2020 ) 6(7):1208–22.

    Not in our library10.1021/acscentsci.9b01235

  138. 138.

    Le Tourneau C Raymond E Faivre S. Sunitinib: A Novel Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor. A Brief Review of its Therapeutic Potential in the Treatment of Renal Carcinoma and Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST). Ther Clin Risk Manage (2007 ) 3(2):341–8.

    Not in our library10.2147/tcrm.2007.3.2.341

  139. 139.

    Zhu W Xu R Du J Fu Y Li S Zhang P. Zoledronic Acid Promotes TLR-4-mediated M1 Macrophage Polarization in Bisphosphonate-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw. FASEB J (2019 ) 33(4):5208–19.

    Not in our library10.1096/fj.201801791rr

  140. 140.
    The Remarkable Plasticity of Macrophages: A Chance to Fight Cancer · 2019
    Not checked
  141. 141.

    Cartenì G Bordonaro R Giotta F Lorusso V Scalone S Vinaccia V. Efficacy and Safety of Zoledronic Acid in Patients With Breast Cancer Metastatic to Bone: A Multicenter Clinical Trial. Oncologist (2006 ) 11(7):841–8.

    Not in our library10.1634/theoncologist.11-7-841

  142. 142.

    Okegawa T Higaki M Matsumoto T Kase H Murata A Noda K. Zoledronic Acid Improves Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Bone Metastatic Hormone-Naïve Prostate Cancer in a Multicenter Clinical Trial. Anticancer Res (2014 ) 34(8):4415–20.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.001

  143. 143.

    Uemura H Yanagisawa M Ikeda I Fujinami K Iwasaki A Noguchi S. Possible Anti-Tumor Activity of Initial Treatment With Zoledronic Acid With Hormonal Therapy for Bone-Metastatic Prostate Cancer in Multicenter Clinical Trial. Int J Clin Oncol (2013 ) 18(3):472–7.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10147-012-0406-8

  144. 144.
    Clodronate-liposome-mediated depletion of tumour-associated macrophages: a new and highly effective antiangiogenic therapy approach · 2006
    No notice
  145. 145.

    Bonapace L Coissieux M-M Wyckoff J Mertz KD Varga Z Junt T. Cessation of CCL2 Inhibition Accelerates Breast Cancer Metastasis by Promoting Angiogenesis. Nature (2014 ) 515(7525):130–3.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature13862

  146. 146.

    Hamilton JA. Colony-Stimulating Factors in Inflammation and Autoimmunity. Nat Rev Immunol (2008 ) 8(7):533–44.

    Not in our library10.1038/nri2356

  147. 147.

    Pyonteck SM Akkari L Schuhmacher AJ Bowman RL Sevenich L Quail DF. Csf-1R Inhibition Alters Macrophage Polarization and Blocks Glioma Progression. Nat Med (2013 ) 19(10):1264–72.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm.3337

  148. 148.

    Rosenbaum E Kelly C D’Angelo SP Dickson MA Gounder M Keohan ML. A Phase I Study of Binimetinib (Mek162) Combined With Pexidartinib (PLX3397) in Patients With Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor. Oncol (2019 ) 24(10):1309–e983.

    Not in our library10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0418

  149. 149.

    von Tresckow B Morschhauser F Ribrag V Topp MS Chien C Seetharam S. Multicenter, Phase I/Ii Study of JNJ-40346527, a CSF-1R Inhibitor, in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res (2015 ) 21(8):1843–50.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-1845

  150. 150.

    Kumar V Donthireddy L Marvel D Condamine T Wang F Lavilla-Alonso S. Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts Neutralize the Anti-tumor Effect of CSF1 Receptor Blockade by Inducing Pmn-Mdsc Infiltration of Tumors. Cancer Cell (2017 ) 32(5):654–68.e5.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2017.10.005

  151. 151.

    Borgoni S Iannello A Cutrupi S Allavena P D’Incalci M Novelli F. Depletion of Tumor-Associated Macrophages Switches the Epigenetic Profile of Pancreatic Cancer Infiltrating T Cells and Restores Their Anti-Tumor Phenotype. Oncoimmunology (2018 ) 7(2):e1393596.

    Not in our library10.1080/2162402x.2017.1393596

  152. 152.

    Mantovani A Sica A Sozzani S Allavena P Vecchi A Locati M. The Chemokine System in Diverse Forms of Macrophage Activation and Polarization. Trends Immunol (2004 ) 25(12):677–86.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.it.2004.09.015

  153. 153.
    Macrophage M1/M2 Polarization Dynamically Adapts to Changes in Cytokine Microenvironments in <named-content content-type="genus-species">Cryptococcus neoformans</named-content> Infection · 2013
    Not checked
  154. 154.

    Gao CH Dong HL Tai L Gao XM. Lactoferrin-Containing Immunocomplexes Drive the Conversion of Human Macrophages From M2- Into M1-like Phenotype. Front Immunol (2018 ) 9:37.

    Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2018.00037

  155. 155.

    Cheng H Sun L Shen D Ren A Ma F Tai G. Beta-1,6 Glucan Converts Tumor-Associated Macrophages Into an M1-like Phenotype. Carbohydr Polymers (2020 ) 247:116715.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116715

  156. 156.

    Dudek AZ Yunis C Harrison LI Kumar S Hawkinson R Cooley S. First in Human Phase I Trial of 852A, a Novel Systemic Toll-Like Receptor 7 Agonist, to Activate Innate Immune Responses in Patients With Advanced Cancer. Clin Cancer Res (2007 ) 13(23):7119–25.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-07-1443

  157. 157.

    Dummer R Hauschild A Becker JC Grob JJ Schadendorf D Tebbs V. An Exploratory Study of Systemic Administration of the Toll-Like Receptor-7 Agonist 852A in Patients With Refractory Metastatic Melanoma. Clin Cancer Res (2008 ) 14(3):856–64.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-07-1938

  158. 158.

    Vollmer J Weeratna R Payette P Jurk M Schetter C Laucht M. Characterization of Three CpG Oligodeoxynucleotide Classes With Distinct Immunostimulatory Activities. Eur J Immunol (2004 ) 34(1):251–62.

    Not in our library10.1002/eji.200324032

  159. 159.

    Miura K Ishioka M Minami S Horie Y Ohshima S Goto T. Toll-Like Receptor 4 on Macrophage Promotes the Development of Steatohepatitis-related Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Mice. J Biol Chem (2016 ) 291(22):11504–17.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m115.709048

  160. 160.

    Gamrekelashvili J Kapanadze T Sablotny S Ratiu C Dastagir K Lochner M. Notch and TLR Signaling Coordinate Monocyte Cell Fate and Inflammation. eLife (2020 ) 9:e57007.

    Not in our library10.7554/elife.57007

  161. 161.

    Butcher SK O’Carroll CE Wells CA Carmody RJ. Toll-Like Receptors Drive Specific Patterns of Tolerance and Training on Restimulation of Macrophages. Front Immunol (2018 ) 9:933.

    Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2018.00933

  162. 162.

    Shetab Boushehri MA Lamprecht A. Tlr4-Based Immunotherapeutics in Cancer: A Review of the Achievements and Shortcomings. Mol Pharm (2018 ) 15(11):4777–800.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.8b00691

  163. 163.

    Kumar S Ramesh A Kulkarni A. Targeting Macrophages: A Novel Avenue for Cancer Drug Discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discovery (2020 ) 15(5):561–74.

    Not in our library10.1080/17460441.2020.1733525

  164. 164.

    Adams S Kozhaya L Martiniuk F Meng T-C Chiriboga L Liebes L. Topical TLR7 Agonist Imiquimod can Induce Immune-Mediated Rejection of Skin Metastases in Patients With Breast Cancer. Clin Cancer Res (2012 ) 18(24):6748–57.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-1149

  165. 165.

    Sultan H Salazar AM Celis E. Poly-ICLC, a Multi-Functional Immune Modulator for Treating Cancer. Semin Immunol (2020 ) p:101414.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.smim.2020.101414

  166. 166.

    Jahrsdörfer B Weiner GJ. Cpg Oligodeoxynucleotides as Immunotherapy in Cancer. Update Cancer Ther (2008 ) 3(1):27–32.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.uct.2007.11.003

  167. 167.

    Heuking S Rothen-Rutishauser B Raemy DO Gehr P Borchard G. Fate of TLR-1/TLR-2 Agonist Functionalised pDNA Nanoparticles Upon Deposition At the Human Bronchial Epithelium In Vitro. J Nanobiotechnol (2013 ) 11:29–9.

    Not in our library10.1186/1477-3155-11-29

  168. 168.

    Heidegger S Gößl D Schmidt A Niedermayer S Argyo C Endres S. Immune Response to Functionalized Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles for Targeted Drug Delivery. Nanoscale (2016 ) 8(2):938–48.

    Not in our library10.1039/c5nr06122a

  169. 169.

    Blanco E Shen H Ferrari M. Principles of Nanoparticle Design for Overcoming Biological Barriers to Drug Delivery. Nat Biotechnol (2015 ) 33(9):941–51.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.3330

  170. 170.

    Rodell CB Arlauckas SP Cuccarese MF Garris CS Li R Ahmed MS. TLR7/8-Agonist-Loaded Nanoparticles Promote the Polarization of Tumour-Associated Macrophages to Enhance Cancer Immunotherapy. Nat BioMed Eng (2018 ) 2:578–88.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41551-018-0236-8

  171. 171.

    Barberà-Cremades M Baroja-Mazo A Pelegrín P. Purinergic Signaling During Macrophage Differentiation Results in M2 Alternative Activated Macrophages. J Leukoc Biol (2016 ) 99(2):289–99.

    Not in our library10.1189/jlb.1a0514-267rr

  172. 172.

    Zanin RF Braganhol E Bergamin LS Campesato LFI Filho AZ Moreira JCF. Differential Macrophage Activation Alters the Expression Profile of NTPDase and Ecto-5’-Nucleotidase. PloS One (2012 ) 7(2):e31205–5.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0031205

  173. 173.

    Dosch M Zindel J Jebbawi F Melin N Sanchez-Taltavull D Stroka D. Connexin-43-Dependent ATP Release Mediates Macrophage Activation During Sepsis. Elife (2019 ) 8:321–34.

    Not in our library10.7554/elife.42670

  174. 174.

    Martins I Tesniere A Kepp O Michaud M Schlemmer F Senovilla L. Chemotherapy Induces ATP Release From Tumor Cells. Cell Cycle (2009 ) 8(22):3723–8.

    Not in our library10.4161/cc.8.22.10026

  175. 175.
    The yin and yang functions of extracellular ATP and adenosine in tumor immunity · 2020
    Not checked
  176. 176.

    Bouma MG Stad RK van den Wildenberg FA Buurman WA. Differential Regulatory Effects of Adenosine on Cytokine Release by Activated Human Monocytes. J Immunol (1994 ) 153(9):4159–68.

    Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.16547

  177. 177.

    Krysko DV Garg AD Kaczmarek A Krysko O Agostinis P Vandenabeele P. Immunogenic Cell Death and DAMPs in Cancer Therapy. Nat Rev Cancer (2012 ) 12(12):860–75.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc3380

  178. 178.

    Hay CM Sult E Huang Q Mulgrew K Fuhrmann SR McGlinchey KA. Targeting CD73 in the Tumor Microenvironment With MEDI9447. OncoImmunology (2016 ) 5(8):e1208875.

    Not in our library10.1080/2162402x.2016.1208875

  179. 179.

    Kaneda MM Messer KS Ralainirina N Li H Leem CJ Gorjestani S. Pi3kγ is a Molecular Switch That Controls Immune Suppression. Nature (2016 ) 539(7629):437–42.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature19834

  180. 180.

    Amano MT Castoldi A Andrade-Oliveira V Latancia MT Terra FF Correa-Costa M. The Lack of PI3Kγ Favors M1 Macrophage Polarization and Does Not Prevent Kidney Diseases Progression. Int Immunopharmacol (2018 ) 64:151–61.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.intimp.2018.08.020

  181. 181.

    Lin F Yin HB Li XY Zhu GM He WY Gou X. Bladder Cancer Cell−Secreted Exosomal miR−21 Activates the PI3K/AKT Pathway in Macrophages to Promote Cancer Progression. Int J Oncol (2020 ) 56(1):151–64.

    Not in our library10.3892/ijo.2019.4933

  182. 182.
    Macrophage MSR1 promotes BMSC osteogenic differentiation and M2-like polarization by activating PI3K/AKT/GSK3β/β-catenin pathway · 2020
    No notice
  183. 183.

    Joshi S Singh AR Zulcic M Durden DL. A Macrophage-Dominant Pi3k Isoform Controls Hypoxia-Induced Hif1α and HIF2α Stability and Tumor Growth, Angiogenesis, and Metastasis. Mol Cancer Res (2014 ) 12(10):1520–31.

    Not in our library10.1158/1541-7786.mcr-13-0682

  184. 184.

    Attri KS Mehla K Singh PK. Evaluation of Macrophage Polarization in Pancreatic Cancer Microenvironment Under Hypoxia. In: Huang LE, editor. Hypoxia: Methods and Protocols. New York, NY: Springer New York (2018 ). p. 265–76.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-1-4939-7665-2_23

  185. 185.
    Hypoxia promotes glioma-associated macrophage infiltration via periostin and subsequent M2 polarization by upregulating TGF-beta and M-CSFR · 2016
    No notice
  186. 186.

    Qi L Chen J Yang Y Hu W. Hypoxia Correlates With Poor Survival and M2 Macrophage Infiltration in Colorectal Cancer. Front Oncol (2020 ) 10(2491):312–22.

    Not in our library10.3389/fonc.2020.566430

  187. 187.

    Usman MW Gao J Zheng T Rui C Li T Bian X. Macrophages Confer Resistance to PI3K Inhibitor GDC-0941 in Breast Cancer Through the Activation of NF-κb Signaling. Cell Death Dis (2018 ) 9(8):809–9.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41419-018-0849-6

  188. 188.

    Arranz A Doxaki C Vergadi E Martinez de la Torre Y Vaporidi K Lagoudaki ED. Akt1 and Akt2 Protein Kinases Differentially Contribute to Macrophage Polarization. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2012 ) 109(24):9517–22.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1119038109

  189. 189.

    Byles V Covarrubias AJ Ben-Sahra I Lamming DW Sabatini DM Manning BD. The TSC-mTOR Pathway Regulates Macrophage Polarization. Nat Commun (2013 ) 4(1):2834.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncomms3834

  190. 190.

    Ohmori Y Hamilton TA. Requirement for STAT1 in LPS-induced Gene Expression in Macrophages. J Leukoc Biol (2001 ) 69(4):598–604.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2141.2012.09251.x

  191. 191.

    Mu X Shi W Xu Y Xu C Zhao T Geng B. Tumor-Derived Lactate Induces M2 Macrophage Polarization Via the Activation of the ERK/STAT3 Signaling Pathway in Breast Cancer. Cell Cycle (2018 ) 17(4):428–38.

    Not in our library10.1080/15384101.2018.1444305

  192. 192.
    lncRNA-Xist/miR-101-3p/KLF6/C/EBPα axis promotes TAM polarization to regulate cancer cell proliferation and migration · 2021
    Not checked
  193. 193.

    Elloumi HZ Maharshak N Rao KN Kobayashi T Ryu HS Mühlbauer M. A Cell Permeable Peptide Inhibitor of NFAT Inhibits Macrophage Cytokine Expression and Ameliorates Experimental Colitis. PloS One (2012 ) 7(3):e34172.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0034172

  194. 194.

    Tripathi MK Deane NG Zhu J An H Mima S Wang X. Nuclear Factor of Activated T-cell Activity is Associated With Metastatic Capacity in Colon Cancer. Cancer Res (2014 ) 74(23):6947–57.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-14-1592

  195. 195.

    Tran Quang C Leboucher S Passaro D Fuhrmann L Nourieh M Vincent-Salomon A. The Calcineurin/NFAT Pathway is Activated in Diagnostic Breast Cancer Cases and is Essential to Survival and Metastasis of Mammary Cancer Cells. Cell Death Dis (2015 ) 6(2):e1658–8.

    Not in our library10.1038/cddis.2015.14

  196. 196.

    Colegio OR Chu N-Q Szabo AL Chu T Rhebergen AM Jairam V. Functional Polarization of Tumour-Associated Macrophages by Tumour-Derived Lactic Acid. Nature (2014 ) 513(7519):559–63.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature13490

  197. 197.

    Michelucci A Cordes T Ghelfi J Pailot A Reiling N Goldmann O. Immune-Responsive Gene 1 Protein Links Metabolism to Immunity by Catalyzing Itaconic Acid Production. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2013 ) 110(19):7820–5.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1218599110

  198. 198.

    Johnson MO Wolf MM Madden MZ Andrejeva G Sugiura A Contreras DC. Distinct Regulation of Th17 and Th1 Cell Differentiation by Glutaminase-Dependent Metabolism. Cell (2018 ) 175(7):1780–95.e19.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.9098

  199. 199.

    Chang CI Liao JC Kuo L. Macrophage Arginase Promotes Tumor Cell Growth and Suppresses Nitric Oxide-Mediated Tumor Cytotoxicity. Cancer Res (2001 ) 61(3):1100–6.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2018.36.15_suppl.3078

  200. 200.

    Kung JT Brooks SB Jakway JP Leonard LL Talmage DW. Suppression of In Vitro Cytotoxic Response by Macrophages Due to Induced Arginase. J Exp Med (1977 ) 146(3):665–72.

    Not in our library10.1084/jem.146.3.665

  201. 201.

    Hardbower DM Asim M Luis PB Singh K Barry DP Yang C. Ornithine Decarboxylase Regulates M1 Macrophage Activation and Mucosal Inflammation Via Histone Modifications. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2017 ) 114(5):E751–60.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1614958114

  202. 202.

    Sahin E Haubenwallner S Kuttke M Kollmann I Halfmann A Dohnal AB. Macrophage PTEN Regulates Expression and Secretion of Arginase I Modulating Innate and Adaptive Immune Responses. J Immunol (2014 ) 193(4):1717–27.

    Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.1302167

  203. 203.

    de Boniface J Mao Y Schmidt-Mende J Kiessling R Poschke I. Expression Patterns of the Immunomodulatory Enzyme Arginase 1 in Blood, Lymph Nodes and Tumor Tissue of Early-Stage Breast Cancer Patients. Oncoimmunology (2012 ) 1(8):1305–12.

    Not in our library10.4161/onci.21678

  204. 204.

    Yurdagul A, Jr Subramanian M Wang X Crown SB Ilkayeva OR Darville L. Macrophage Metabolism of Apoptotic Cell-Derived Arginine Promotes Continual Efferocytosis and Resolution of Injury. Cell Metab (2020 ) 31(3):518–33.e10.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.03.029

  205. 205.

    Rodriguez PC Quiceno DG Zabaleta J Ortiz B Zea AH Piazuelo MB. Arginase I Production in the Tumor Microenvironment by Mature Myeloid Cells Inhibits T-Cell Receptor Expression and Antigen-Specific T-Cell Responses. Cancer Res (2004 ) 64(16):5839–49.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-04-0465

  206. 206.
    Inhibition of arginase by CB-1158 blocks myeloid cell-mediated immune suppression in the tumor microenvironment · 2017
    No notice
  207. 207.

    Labadie BW Bao R Luke JJ. Reimagining IDO Pathway Inhibition in Cancer Immunotherapy Via Downstream Focus on the Tryptophan–Kynurenine–Aryl Hydrocarbon Axis. Clin Cancer Res (2019 ) 25(5):1462–71.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-18-2882

  208. 208.

    Miyasato Y Takashima Y Takeya H Yano H Hayano A Nakagawa T. The Expression of PD-1 Ligands and IDO1 by Macrophage/Microglia in Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma. J Clin Exp Hematopathol JCEH (2018 ) 58(2):95–101.

    Not in our library10.3960/jslrt.18001

  209. 209.

    Su S Zhao J Xing Y Zhang X Liu J Ouyang Q. Immune Checkpoint Inhibition Overcomes Adcp-Induced Immunosuppression by Macrophages. Cell (2018 ) 175(2):442–57.e23.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2019.37.8_suppl.126

  210. 210.

    Toulmonde M Penel N Adam J Chevreau C Blay J-Y Le Cesne A. Use of PD-1 Targeting, Macrophage Infiltration, and IDO Pathway Activation in Sarcomas: A Phase 2 Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol (2018 ) 4(1):93–7.

    Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.1617

  211. 211.

    Mei J Chang KK Sun HX. Immunosuppressive Macrophages Induced by IDO1 Promote the Growth of Endometrial Stromal Cells in Endometriosis. Mol Med Rep (2017 ) 15(4):2255–60.

    Not in our library10.3892/mmr.2017.6242

  212. 212.

    Jiang N Zhang L Zhao G Lin J Wang Q Xu Q. Indoleamine 2,3-Dioxygenase Regulates Macrophage Recruitment, Polarization and Phagocytosis in Aspergillus Fumigatus Keratitis. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci (2020 ) 61(8):28–8.

    Not in our library10.1167/iovs.61.8.28

  213. 213.

    Hou D-Y Muller AJ Sharma MD DuHadaway J Banerjee T Johnson M. Inhibition of Indoleamine 2,3-Dioxygenase in Dendritic Cells by Stereoisomers of 1-Methyl-Tryptophan Correlates With Antitumor Responses. Cancer Res (2007 ) 67(2):792–801.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-06-2925

  214. 214.

    Metz R Rust S DuHadaway JB Mautino MR Munn DH Vahanian NN. IDO Inhibits a Tryptophan Sufficiency Signal That Stimulates Mtor: A Novel IDO Effector Pathway Targeted by D-1-Methyl-Tryptophan. OncoImmunology (2012 ) 1(9):1460–8.

    Not in our library10.4161/onci.21716

  215. 215.

    Prieto AL Weber JL Tracy S Heeb MJ Lai C. Gas6, a Ligand for the Receptor Protein-Tyrosine Kinase Tyro-3, is Widely Expressed in the Central Nervous System. Brain Res (1999 ) 816(2):646–61.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0006-8993(98)01159-7

  216. 216.

    Al Kafri N Hafizi S Tumour-Secreted Protein S. (Pros1) Activates a Tyro3-Erk Signalling Axis and Protects Cancer Cells From Apoptosis. Cancers (Basel) (2019 ) 11(12):282–9.

    Not in our library10.3390/cancers11121843

  217. 217.

    Al Kafri N Hafizi S. Galectin-3 Stimulates Tyro3 Receptor Tyrosine Kinase and Erk Signalling, Cell Survival and Migration in Human Cancer Cells. Biomolecules (2020 ) 10(7):1035.

    Not in our library10.3390/biom10071035

  218. 218.

    Caberoy NB Zhou Y Li W. Tubby and Tubby-Like Protein 1 are New MerTK Ligands for Phagocytosis. EMBO J (2010 ) 29(23):3898–910.

    Not in our library10.1038/emboj.2010.265

  219. 219.
    Differential TAM receptor–ligand–phospholipid interactions delimit differential TAM bioactivities · 2014
    No notice
  220. 220.

    Sandahl M Hunter DM Strunk KE Earp HS Cook RS. Epithelial Cell-Directed Efferocytosis in the Post-Partum Mammary Gland is Necessary for Tissue Homeostasis and Future Lactation. BMC Dev Biol (2010 ) 10(1):122.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-213x-10-122

  221. 221.

    Nishi C Yanagihashi Y Segawa K Nagata S. MERTK Tyrosine Kinase Receptor Together With TIM4 Phosphatidylserine Receptor Mediates Distinct Signal Transduction Pathways for Efferocytosis and Cell Proliferation. J Biol Chem (2019 ) 294(18):7221–30.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.ra118.006628

  222. 222.

    Camenisch TD Koller BH Earp HS Matsushima GK. A Novel Receptor Tyrosine Kinase, Mer, Inhibits TNF-alpha Production and Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Endotoxic Shock. J Immunol (1999 ) 162(6):3498–503.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.105

  223. 223.

    Guttridge KL Luft JC Dawson TL Kozlowska E Mahajan NP Varnum B. Mer Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Signaling: Prevention of Apoptosis and Alteration of Cytoskeletal Architecture Without Stimulation or Proliferation. J Biol Chem (2002 ) 277(27):24057–66.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m112086200

  224. 224.

    Rothlin CV Ghosh S Zuniga EI Oldstone MBA Lemke G. Tam Receptors are Pleiotropic Inhibitors of the Innate Immune Response. Cell (2007 ) 131(6):1124–36.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2007.10.034

  225. 225.

    Cook RS Jacobsen KM Wofford AM DeRyckere D Stanford J Prieto AL. MerTK Inhibition in Tumor Leukocytes Decreases Tumor Growth and Metastasis. J Clin Invest (2013 ) 123(8):3231–42.

    Not in our library10.1172/jci67655

  226. 226.
    Tumor cell-released autophagosomes (TRAPs) promote immunosuppression through induction of M2-like macrophages with increased expression of PD-L1 · 2018
    No notice
  227. 227.

    Tang J Pearce L O’Donnell-Tormey J Hubbard-Lucey VM. Trends in the Global Immuno-Oncology Landscape. Nat Rev Drug Discovery (2018 ) 17(11):783–4.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrd.2018.167

  228. 228.

    Xiong H Mittman S Rodriguez R Moskalenko M Pacheco-Sanchez P Yang Y. Anti-Pd-L1 Treatment Results in Functional Remodeling of the Macrophage Compartment. Cancer Res (2019 ) 79(7):1493–506.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-18-3208

  229. 229.

    Gardai SJ McPhillips KA Frasch SC Janssen WJ Starefeldt A Murphy-Ullrich JE. Cell-Surface Calreticulin Initiates Clearance of Viable or Apoptotic Cells Through trans-Activation of LRP on the Phagocyte. Cell (2005 ) 123(2):321–34.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2005.08.032

  230. 230.

    Weiskopf K Jahchan NS Schnorr PJ Cristea S Ring AM Maute RL. CD47-Blocking Immunotherapies Stimulate Macrophage-Mediated Destruction of Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Invest (2016 ) 126(7):2610–20.

    Not in our library10.1172/jci81603

  231. 231.

    Tsai RK Discher DE. Inhibition of “Self” Engulfment Through Deactivation of myosin-II At the Phagocytic Synapse Between Human Cells. J Cell Biol (2008 ) 180(5):989–1003.

    Not in our library10.1083/jcb.200708043

  232. 232.

    Liu R Wei H Gao P Yu H Wang K Fu Z. CD47 Promotes Ovarian Cancer Progression by Inhibiting Macrophage Phagocytosis. Oncotarget (2017 ) 8(24):341–48.

    Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.16547

  233. 233.

    Manna PP Frazier WA. CD47 Mediates Killing of Breast Tumor Cells Via Gi-dependent Inhibition of Protein Kinase a. Cancer Res (2004 ) 64(3):1026–36.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-03-1708

  234. 234.
    Engineering macrophages to phagocytose cancer cells by blocking the CD47/SIRPɑ axis · 2019
    Not checked
  235. 235.

    Chen G-Y Chen X King S Cavassani KA Cheng J Zheng X. Amelioration of Sepsis by Inhibiting Sialidase-Mediated Disruption of the CD24-SiglecG Interaction. Nat Biotechnol (2011 ) 29(5):428–35.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.1846

  236. 236.

    Chen G-Y Tang J Zheng P Liu Y. CD24 and Siglec-10 Selectively Repress Tissue Damage–Induced Immune Responses. Science (2009 ) 323(5922):1722–5.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1168988

  237. 237.

    Mills CD Kincaid K Alt JM Heilman MJ Hill AM. M-1/M-2 Macrophages and the Th1/Th2 Paradigm. J Immunol (2000 ) 164(12):6166–73.

    Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.164.12.6166

  238. 238.

    Martinez FO Gordon S. The M1 and M2 Paradigm of Macrophage Activation: Time for Reassessment. F1000Prime Rep (2014 ) 6:13.

    Not in our library10.12703/p6-13

  239. 239.

    Nau GJ Richmond JFL Schlesinger A Jennings EG Lander ES Young RA. Human Macrophage Activation Programs Induced by Bacterial Pathogens. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2002 ) 99(3):1503–8.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.022649799

  240. 240.

    Blériot C Dupuis T Jouvion G Eberl G Disson O Lecuit M. Liver-Resident Macrophage Necroptosis Orchestrates Type 1 Microbicidal Inflammation and type-2-mediated Tissue Repair During Bacterial Infection. Immunity (2015 ) 42(1):145–58.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2014.12.020

  241. 241.

    Satoh T Takeuchi O Vandenbon A Yasuda K Tanaka Y Kumagai Y. The Jmjd3-Irf4 Axis Regulates M2 Macrophage Polarization and Host Responses Against Helminth Infection. Nat Immunol (2010 ) 11(10):936–44.

    Not in our library10.1038/ni.1920

  242. 242.

    Ji Y Sun S Xu A Bhargava P Yang L Lam KSL. Activation of Natural Killer T Cells Promotes M2 Macrophage Polarization in Adipose Tissue and Improves Systemic Glucose Tolerance Via Interleukin-4 (Il-4)/Stat6 Protein Signaling Axis in Obesity. J Biol Chem (2012 ) 287(17):13561–71.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m112.350066

  243. 243.

    Koh TJ DiPietro LA. Inflammation and Wound Healing: The Role of the Macrophage. Expert Rev Mol Med (2011 ) 13:e23.

    Not in our library10.1017/s1462399411001943

  244. 244.

    Wang LX Zhang SX Wu HJ Rong XL Guo J. M2b Macrophage Polarization and its Roles in Diseases. J Leukoc Biol (2019 ) 106(2):345–58.

    Not in our library10.1002/jlb.3ru1018-378rr

  245. 245.

    Durbin JE Hackenmiller R Simon MC Levy DE. Targeted Disruption of the Mouse Stat1 Gene Results in Compromised Innate Immunity to Viral Disease. Cell (1996 ) 84(3):443–50.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81289-1

  246. 246.

    Meraz MA White JM Sheehan KC Bach EA Rodig SJ Dighe AS. Targeted Disruption of the Stat1 Gene in Mice Reveals Unexpected Physiologic Specificity in the JAK-STAT Signaling Pathway. Cell (1996 ) 84(3):431–42.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81288-x

  247. 247.

    Ait-Lounis A Laraba-Djebari F. TNF-Alpha Modulates Adipose Macrophage Polarization to M1 Phenotype in Response to Scorpion Venom. Inflammation Res (2015 ) 64(11):929–36.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00011-015-0876-z

  248. 248.

    Campbell J Ciesielski CJ Hunt AE Horwood NJ Beech JT Hayes LA. A Novel Mechanism for TNF-alpha Regulation by P38 MAPK: Involvement of NF-Kappa B With Implications for Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis. J Immunol (2004 ) 173(11):6928–37.

    Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.173.11.6928

  249. 249.

    Waetzig GH Seegert D Rosenstiel P Nikolaus S Schreiber S. p38 Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase is Activated and Linked to TNF-alpha Signaling in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. J Immunol (2002 ) 168(10):5342–51.

    Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.168.10.5342

  250. 250.

    Brinkman BM Telliez JB Schievella AR Lin LL Goldfeld AE. Engagement of Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) Receptor 1 Leads to ATF-2- and p38 Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase-Dependent TNF-alpha Gene Expression. J Biol Chem (1999 ) 274(43):30882–6.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.274.43.30882

  251. 251.
    Metformin-treated cancer cells modulate macrophage polarization through AMPK-NF-κB signaling · 2017
    No notice
  252. 252.

    Yang Y Wang X Moore DR Lightfoot SA Huycke MM. Tnf-α Mediates Macrophage-Induced Bystander Effects Through Netrin-1. Cancer Res (2012 ) 72(20):5219–29.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-12-1463

  253. 253.

    Lukic A Larssen P Fauland A Samuelsson B Wheelock CE Gabrielsson S. Gm-CSF- and M-CSF-primed Macrophages Present Similar Resolving But Distinct Inflammatory Lipid Mediator Signatures. FASEB J (2017 ) 31(10):4370–81.

    Not in our library10.1096/fj.201700319r

  254. 254.

    Cao W Peters JH Nieman D Sharma M Watson T Yu J. Macrophage Subtype Predicts Lymph Node Metastasis in Oesophageal Adenocarcinoma and Promotes Cancer Cell Invasion In Vitro. Br J Cancer (2015 ) 113(5):738–46.

    Not in our library10.1038/bjc.2015.292

  255. 255.

    Wang Q Ni H Lan L Wei X Xiang R Wang Y. Fra-1 Protooncogene Regulates IL-6 Expression in Macrophages and Promotes the Generation of M2d Macrophages. Cell Res (2010 ) 20(6):701–12.

    Not in our library10.1038/cr.2010.52

  256. 256.

    Stein M Keshav S Harris N Gordon S. Interleukin 4 Potently Enhances Murine Macrophage Mannose Receptor Activity: A Marker of Alternative Immunologic Macrophage Activation. J Exp Med (1992 ) 176(1):287–92.

    Not in our library10.1084/jem.176.1.287

  257. 257.

    Jetten N Verbruggen S Gijbels MJ Post MJ De Winther MP Donners MM. Anti-Inflammatory M2, But Not Pro-Inflammatory M1 Macrophages Promote Angiogenesis In Vivo. Angiogenesis (2014 ) 17(1):109–18.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10456-013-9381-6

  258. 258.

    Shiratori H Feinweber C Luckhardt S Linke B Resch E Geisslinger G. THP-1 and Human Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cell-Derived Macrophages Differ in Their Capacity to Polarize In Vitro. Mol Immunol (2017 ) 88:58–68.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molimm.2017.05.027

  259. 259.

    Fadok VA Bratton DL Konowal A Freed PW Westcott JY Henson PM. Macrophages That Have Ingested Apoptotic Cells In Vitro Inhibit Proinflammatory Cytokine Production Through Autocrine/Paracrine Mechanisms Involving TGF-beta, PGE2, and PAF. J Clin Invest (1998 ) 101(4):890–8.

    Not in our library10.1172/jci1112

  260. 260.
    Role of Human Macrophage Polarization in Inflammation during Infectious Diseases · 2018
    No notice
  261. 261.

    Lai YS Putra R Aui SP Chang KT. M2(C) Polarization by Baicalin Enhances Efferocytosis Via Upregulation of MERTK Receptor. Am J Chin Med (2018 ) 46(8):1899–914.

    Not in our library10.1142/s0192415x18500957

  262. 262.

    Huang X Li Y Fu M Xin HB. Polarizing Macrophages In Vitro. Methods Mol Biol (2018 ) 1784:119–26.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-1-4939-7837-3_12

  263. 263.
    Generation of monocyte-derived tumor-associated macrophages using tumor-conditioned media provides a novel method to study tumor-associated macrophages in vitro · 2019
    No notice
  264. 264.

    Binnemars-Postma K Bansal R Storm G Prakash J. Targeting the Stat6 Pathway in Tumor-Associated Macrophages Reduces Tumor Growth and Metastatic Niche Formation in Breast Cancer. FASEB J (2018 ) 32(2):969–78.

    Not in our library10.1096/fj.201700629r

  265. 265.
    Single-cell RNA-seq enables comprehensive tumour and immune cell profiling in primary breast cancer · 2017
    No notice
  266. 266.
    Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals heterogeneous tumor and immune cell populations in early-stage lung adenocarcinomas harboring EGFR mutations · 2020
    No notice
  267. 267.
    Estimation of immune cell content in tumor using single-cell RNA-seq reference data · 2019
    Not checked
  268. 268.

    Valeta-Magara A Gadi A Volta V Walters B Arju R Giashuddin S. Inflammatory Breast Cancer Promotes Development of M2 Tumor-Associated Macrophages and Cancer Mesenchymal Cells Through a Complex Chemokine Network. Cancer Res (2019 ) 79(13):3360–71.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-17-2158

  269. 269.

    Martinez FO Gordon S Locati M Mantovani A. Transcriptional Profiling of the Human Monocyte-to-Macrophage Differentiation and Polarization: New Molecules and Patterns of Gene Expression. J Immunol (2006 ) 177(10):7303–11.

    Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.177.10.7303

  270. 270.

    Singh JK Simões BM Howell SJ Farnie G Clarke RB. Recent Advances Reveal IL-8 Signaling as a Potential Key to Targeting Breast Cancer Stem Cells. Breast Cancer Res (2013 ) 15(4):210.

    Not in our library10.1186/bcr3436

  271. 271.

    Azizi E Carr AJ Plitas G Cornish AE Konopacki C Prabhakaran S. Single-Cell Map of Diverse Immune Phenotypes in the Breast Tumor Microenvironment. Cell (2018 ) 174(5):1293–308.e36.

    Not in our library10.1186/bcr3436

  272. 272.

    Klein, Allon M Mazutis L Akartuna I Tallapragada N Veres A Li V. Droplet Barcoding for Single-Cell Transcriptomics Applied to Embryonic Stem Cells. Cell (2015 ) 161(5):1187–201.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2015.04.044

  273. 273.

    Zilionis R Nainys J Veres A Savova V Zemmour D Klein AM. Single-Cell Barcoding and Sequencing Using Droplet Microfluidics. Nat Protoc (2017 ) 12(1):44–73.

    Not in our library10.1038/nprot.2016.154

  274. 274.
    Single-cell profiling of human gliomas reveals macrophage ontogeny as a basis for regional differences in macrophage activation in the tumor microenvironment · 2017
    No notice
  275. 275.
    Alveolar Macrophages in the Resolution of Inflammation, Tissue Repair, and Tolerance to Infection · 2018
    No notice
  276. 276.
    Macrophages and the maintenance of homeostasis · 2020
    No notice
  277. 277.

    Ståhl PL Salmén F Vickovic S Lundmark A Navarro JF Magnusson J. Visualization and Analysis of Gene Expression in Tissue Sections by Spatial Transcriptomics. Science (2016 ) 353(6294):78–82.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aaf2403

  278. 278.

    Moncada R Barkley D Wagner F Chiodin M Devlin JC Baron M. Integrating Microarray-Based Spatial Transcriptomics and Single-Cell RNA-seq Reveals Tissue Architecture in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinomas. Nat Biotechnol (2020 ) 38(3):333–42.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41587-019-0392-8

  279. 279.
    LNMAT1 promotes lymphatic metastasis of bladder cancer via CCL2 dependent macrophage recruitment · 2018
    No notice
  280. 280.

    De la Fuente López M Landskron G Parada D Dubois-Camacho K Simian D Martinez M. The Relationship Between Chemokines CCL2, CCL3, and CCL4 With the Tumor Microenvironment and Tumor-Associated Macrophage Markers in Colorectal Cancer. Tumour Biol (2018 ) 40(11):1010428318810059.

    Not in our library10.1177/1010428318810059

  281. 281.

    Qian BZ Li J Zhang H Kitamura T Zhang J Campion LR. CCL2 Recruits Inflammatory Monocytes to Facilitate Breast-Tumour Metastasis. Nature (2011 ) 475(7355):222–5.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature10138

  282. 282.
    Tumor-infiltrating monocytes/macrophages promote tumor invasion and migration by upregulating S100A8 and S100A9 expression in cancer cells · 2016
    No notice
  283. 283.
    Dissecting intratumoral myeloid cell plasticity by single cell RNA‐seq · 2019
    No notice
  284. 284.

    Abdalla SI Sanderson IR Fitzgerald RC. Effect of Inflammation on Cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 Expression in Benign and Malignant Oesophageal Cells. Carcinogenesis (2005 ) 26(9):1627–33.

    Not in our library10.1093/carcin/bgi114

  285. 285.

    Perry CJ Muñoz-Rojas AR Meeth KM Kellman LN Amezquita RA Thakral D. Myeloid-Targeted Immunotherapies Act in Synergy to Induce Inflammation and Antitumor Immunity. J Exp Med (2018 ) 215(3):877–93.

    Not in our library10.1084/jem.20171435

  286. 286.

    Takada Y Kobayashi Y Aggarwal BB. Evodiamine Abolishes Constitutive and Inducible Nf-κb Activation by Inhibiting Iκbα Kinase Activation, Thereby Suppressing Nf-κb-Regulated Antiapoptotic and Metastatic Gene Expression, Up-Regulating Apoptosis, and Inhibiting Invasion*. J Biol Chem (2005 ) 280(17):17203–12.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m500077200

  287. 287.
    Inflammation-Induced Cell Proliferation Potentiates DNA Damage-Induced Mutations In Vivo · 2015
    No notice
  288. 288.

    Iyengar NM Gucalp A Dannenberg AJ Hudis CA. Obesity and Cancer Mechanisms: Tumor Microenvironment and Inflammation. J Clin Oncol (2016 ) 34(35):4270–6.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2016.67.4283

  289. 289.

    Hayashi T Fujita K Nojima S Hayashi Y Nakano K Ishizuya Y. High-Fat Diet-Induced Inflammation Accelerates Prostate Cancer Growth Via IL6 Signaling. Clin Cancer Res (2018 ) 24(17):4309–18.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-18-0106

Cited by papers we hold 3

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.