No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 23, 2026.

Necroptosis in Immuno-Oncology and Cancer Immunotherapy

Jenny Sprooten, Pieter De Wijngaert, Isaure Vanmeerbeek and 8 more

Cells · 2020 · Review · CC BY

Abstract

Immune-checkpoint blockers (ICBs) have revolutionized oncology and firmly established the subfield of immuno-oncology. Despite this renaissance, a subset of cancer patients remain unresponsive to ICBs due to widespread immuno-resistance. To “break” cancer cell-driven immuno-resistance, researchers have long floated the idea of therapeutically facilitating the immunogenicity of cancer cells by disrupting tumor-associated immuno-tolerance via conventional anticancer therapies. It is well appreciated that anticancer therapies causing immunogenic or inflammatory cell death are best positioned to productively activate anticancer immunity. A large proportion of studies have emphasized the importance of immunogenic apoptosis (i.e., immunogenic cell death or ICD); yet, it has also emerged that necroptosis, a programmed necrotic cell death pathway, can also be immunogenic. Emergence of a proficient immune profile for necroptosis has important implications for cancer because resistance to apoptosis is one of the major hallmarks of tumors. Putative immunogenic or inflammatory characteristics driven by necroptosis can be of great impact in immuno-oncology. However, as is typical for a highly complex and multi-factorial disease like cancer, a clear cause versus consensus relationship on the immunobiology of necroptosis in cancer cells has been tough to establish. In this review, we discuss the various aspects of necroptosis immunobiology with specific focus on immuno-oncology and cancer immunotherapy.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 23, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

1. Introduction

1Over the last decade it has become clear that, as compared to conventional anticancer therapies (such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapy), immune-based therapeutics have the highest probability of durably prolonging the survival of (at least a subset of) cancer patients with relatively good quality of life. Immunotherapies, especially those antagonizing immune-checkpoints such as programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) or cytotoxic T lymphocytes associated protein 4 (CTLA4) (both part of the family of immune-regulatory molecules crucial for general suppression of anti-tumor immunity) have been approved to treat several solid malignancies, such as melanoma, lung cancer, head and neck cancer, renal cell cancer and bladder cancer (among others). For the first time in decades, immune-checkpoint blockers (ICBs)-based immunotherapies have allowed oncologists to anticipate tumor curative strategies. This transformation has been so drastic that ICBs have, in a very short period, replaced various standard-of-care conventional therapies to take the position of first line (neo)adjuvant therapies for melanoma, lung cancer and renal cell cancer.

2Despite these advances, not all cancer patients durably respond to ICBs. Resistance to ICBs is visible not only on the level of cancer types (e.g., ovarian cancer, glioblastoma, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, sarcomas), but also in subgroups of patients of cancer types typically responsive to immunotherapy (e.g., melanoma, lung cancer and renal cell cancer). Such resistance is often orchestrated through well-established immuno-evasive mechanisms propagated by cancer cells: (I) exhibition of low immunogenic potential (by reducing expression of cancer antigens or molecules involved in antigen presentation machinery); (II) provoking dysregulation of the lymphoid compartment through immunosuppressive cytokines, T lymphocytes-excluding factors or even ‘alternative’ immune-checkpoints (i.e., immune-checkpoints other than PD1 or CTLA4), thus enabling deletion of T cells through prolonged exertion of immunological and metabolic exhaustion; (III) disrupting long-term differentiation as well as perseverance of memory T lymphocytes; and, (IV) upregulation of regulated cell death (RCD)-resistance mechanisms that can also neutralize T cells-mediated cancer cell lytic activity.

3Rescuing the effector potential of anticancer lymphocytes via T cells targeting (e.g., agonists of T cell activating molecules) or reconstituting (e.g., adoptive T cell transfer) therapies are being intensively explored to overcome these resistance mechanisms. A complementary approach has been to promote the immunogenicity of cancers cells by disrupting tumor-associated immune-tolerance through conventional anticancer therapies. It has been proposed that first-line application of conventional anticancer therapies (at highly calculated doses) may “reset” the tumor microenvironment through immune response-facilitating cancer cell death, thereby making it more susceptible to ICBs-driven effector T cell infiltrates. This was exemplified by the recently published TONIC (Trial of Nivolumab after induction treatment in triple-negative breast cancer) clinical trial, wherein breast tumors pre-treated with cisplatin or doxorubicin responded favorably to second-line intervention with PD1-targeting ICBs. Therefore, anticancer therapies that cause an immunogenic or even inflammatory demise of cancer cells are best positioned to productively “pulse” professional antigen-presenting cells (APCs) like dendritic cells (DCs) with cancer antigens. This can further enable DCs-driven priming of T cells for these antigens, thereby creating antigen-specific effector T cells. Despite the excitement about integrating conventional anticancer therapies that induce immunogenic or inflammatory sub-forms of RCD into immuno-oncology paradigms, there is a lack of consensus on which RCD sub-form should be prioritized in combinatorial regimens.

4Many studies exploring immunogenic or inflammatory sub-forms of RCD in cancer have emphasized the importance of apoptosis induced by various anticancer therapies. Furthermore, apoptosis is a form of RCD that is associated with an orderly intracellular degradation of the dying cell that enables efficient immunological clearance and disposal. Herein, specific chemotherapies (e.g., anthracyclines, oxaliplatin), targeted therapies (e.g., bortezomib), physical therapies (e.g., photodynamic therapy, high hydrostatic pressure) and oncolytic viruses have been reported to induce an immunogenic form of apoptosis or immunogenic cell death (ICD) in cancer cells that enables anticancer immunity. ICD-inducing anticancer therapies can achieve this rare pro-immune phenomenon in cancer due to the spatio-temporally defined emission of danger signals (specific ‘eat me’ or ‘find me’ signals and alarmins), as well as pathogen-response signals like cytokines (i.e., type I interferons/IFNs) and chemokines (e.g., CCL2, CXCL1 and CXCL10). Although such findings argue for the prioritization of apoptotic ICD for immuno-oncology paradigms, it is clear that ICD can also operate via other forms of RCD such as necroptosis. Necroptosis is a form of RCD characterized by a genetically and molecularly defined (rather than typically accidental) necrotic program, thereby eliciting necrosis-associated inflammation. This change in the molecular machinery underlying ICD biology has important implications for cancer because resistance to RCD, especially apoptosis, is one of the major hallmarks of cancer and has long been a major obstacle for anticancer therapies. For instance, while genes coding for pro-apoptotic caspases (such as CASP8, CASP9 or CASP3) are under significantly heavy, loci-specific, negative selection or genetic deletion pressures within most human cancers (Figure 1); yet this is not always the case for necrosome-relevant genes (such as RIPK1, RIPK3 or MLKL), which experience random or unspecific genetic deletions at the same rate as background genetic aberration frequency in human cancers (Figure 1). This suggests that targeted inactivation of the caspase-based apoptotic machinery during tumour evolution may render cancer cells more susceptible to necroptosis. Hence, putative immunogenic or inflammatory characteristics of necroptosis can be of significant interest in immuno-oncology. However, because of the highly complex and multi-factorial character of cancer, a clear consensus on the immunobiology of necroptosis in cancer cells has been tough to establish.

5Here, we will discuss the various aspects of necroptosis immunobiology focusing on immuno-oncology and cancer immunotherapy. While other forms of necrotic RCD such as ferroptosis (an iron-dependent RCD characterized by accumulation of lipid peroxides) and pyroptosis (a RCD dependent on caspases/granzymes-based, context-dependent, proteolytic activation of pore-forming gasdermin proteins, predominantly triggered by pathogenic stimuli) can elicit reactions in a tumor context; yet, in this review we will focus on necroptosis. Herein, we will first discuss the general (disease-independent) concepts underlying the mechanistic and inflammatory characteristics of necroptosis before exploring its specific role in oncology, immuno-oncology and implications for cancer immunotherapy.

2. Mechanisms Underlying Necroptosis: A Broad Overview

6While necroptosis is a regulated form of molecularly defined necrosis, it resembles accidental necrosis in terms of its final morphology (e.g., organelle swelling, plasma membrane rupture, cell lysis, and leakage of intracellular components). Thus, the molecular pathways underlying necroptosis differentiate it from accidental necrosis (and other forms of regulated necrosis). Interestingly, multiple elements of (extrinsic) apoptosis and necroptosis are shared, such as initiating receptor complexes (Figure 2), because the “default setting” for most normal cells is to engage extrinsic apoptosis since it is less likely to be inflammatory. However, when extrinsic apoptosis fails to be initiated due to genetic, molecular or pharmacological perturbations (e.g., Figure 1), then the proximal pro-death signals initially meant to trigger apoptosis will now provoke necroptosis.

7Necroptosis is mostly initiated by the activation of various surface-associated death receptors (DRs) (e.g., tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 (TNFR1), DR4/5, FAS receptor) (Figure 2). Other surface receptors that can initiate necroptosis include pattern-recognition receptors (PRRs), such as Toll-like receptor 3 (TLR3), TLR4, and Z-DNA binding protein 1 (ZBP1) (Figure 2). Downstream of these proximal “initiator” receptors, necroptosis is typically regulated through three major pro-necroptotic molecules, i.e., receptor interacting serine/threonine kinase 1 (RIPK1), RIPK3 and mixed lineage kinase domain-like pseudo kinase (MLKL) (Figure 2). The most well-known inducer of necroptosis is the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) cytokine, which acts via TNFR1 (Figure 2). Binding of TNF triggers trimerization of TNFR1. This elicits the formation of “Complex I” in association with the TNF receptor wherein Complex I consists of RIPK1, TNF receptor-associated death domain (TRADD), cellular inhibitor of apoptosis protein 1/2 (cIAP1/2), Cylindromatosis lysine 63 deubiquitinase (CYLD) and TNF receptor-associated factor 2 (TRAF2), among other proteins. Complex I is an important “checkpoint” for cellular fate (Figure 2). Depending on the context (stress levels, stimuli intensity, signaling amplitude, cell type, disease context, pharmacological agents and physiological situation), Complex I can enable cell survival, apoptosis or necroptosis. For instance, cIAPs can elicit poly-ubiquitination of RIPK1, thereby abolishing any downstream pro-apoptotic signaling and instead facilitating cellular survival (Figure 2). Via this route the activation of the nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPKs) pathways are initiated. Alternatively, inhibition of cIAPs [e.g., via degradation through second mitochondria-derived activator of caspases (SMAC)] and/or RIPK1 de-ubiquitination via CYLD, can inhibit NF-κB stimulation, causing dissociation of RIPK1/TRADD from the death-receptors complex. This series of events can pave the way for apoptosis induction via a complex called cytosolic death-inducing signaling complex (DISC) (or complex IIa), mainly composed of RIPK1, TRADD, FAS-associated death domain protein (FADD) and procaspase-8, that can lead to caspase-8-driven extrinsic apoptosis (Figure 2). Similarly, FAS/TRAIL receptors can engage a (variant) complex IIb, wherein activated caspase-8 can undertake cleaving of pro-necroptotic proteins thereby firmly steering the cellular fate in the direction of apoptosis. Thus, in the absence of caspase-8 inhibition, these signaling events largely underlie the balance between survival and apoptosis.

8However, when capase-8 is inhibited (e.g., via cellular FLICE-like inhibitory protein long isoform protein (cFLIPL)), disrupted (e.g., via pharmacological or genetic/post-translational ablations) or directly repressed (e.g., due to ultra-high levels of pro-necroptotic RIPK3 and MLKL proteins), the activated RIPK1 in complex IIb is free to recruit RIPK3 thereby facilitating its phosphorylation-driven activation, which in turn recruits and phosphorylates MLKL. This assembly of activated RIPK1, RIPK3 and MLKL enables the formation of the necrosome (or, complex IIc), capable of facilitating necroptosis (Figure 2). Herein, necroptosis is specifically triggered via necrosome-elicited oligomerization of MLKL. The activated MLKL then migrates toward the plasma membrane, to create membrane pores (accompanied by “ballooning” of the plasma membrane) that facilitate massive calcium ions (Ca2+) influx thereby causing the rupture of the plasma membrane (Figure 2). Besides the plasma membrane disruption, MLKL may also target the mitochondrial membrane and induce mitochondrial disruption by opening the mitochondrial permeability transition pore (mPTP). This can result in an excessive production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), further amplifying cell death. It has recently emerged that these MLKL activities do not immediately cause plasma membrane rupture. This is because the endosomal sorting complexes required for the transport III (ESCRT-III) machinery strives to control the duration of plasma membrane disruption, allowing the necroptotic cells to sustain their ongoing transcriptional programs for a relatively longer time. This complex process probably exists since, in case MLKL activation is insufficient in sustaining necroptotic signaling or unstable/reversible, than this ESCRT-III machinery can perhaps prolong cellular survival.

9This clearly shows that most cells are originally programmed to undergo apoptosis while avoiding necroptosis, and only if they fail in this endeavor, do they opt for a necroptotic route of cell demise. Although it must be considered that necroptosis can also be defective in cancer cells (discussed later). Thus, the tendency of human cancers to genetically disrupt caspase-8 (Figure 1) can amply explain their relative susceptibility toward necroptosis. This can also explain why eventually cancer cells can show tendency to disrupt pro-necroptotic machinery (discussed later). It remains to be determined whether caspase-8 deletion is also associated with enhanced (compensatory) deletion of the necroptotic pathway. Irrespective of this, the MLKL-driven plasma membrane rupturing underlies inflammatory characteristics of necroptosis owing to spillage of intracellular contents and immunological signals.

3. Necroptosis and Inflammation

10Necroptosis, by necrosome-facilitated cellular swelling and collapse of the plasma membrane, culminates into the spillage of its intracellular organelles and biomolecules into the extracellular environment. However these released intracellular biomolecules are not restricted to those constitutively produced, or present before necroptosis, e.g., danger signals such as damage-associated molecular patterns or DAMPs (molecules hidden within normal cells and performing non-immunological functions but liberated upon cell death to perform immunological functions like chemotaxis, phagocytosis and immune cell activation). Due to various molecular mechanisms and events discussed above, necroptosis can sustain transcriptional as well as translational activity for a considerable duration even during the necrosome-activity. This allows dying cells to produce various (possibly new) necroptosis-specific inflammatory factors and cytokines (e.g., interleukin 6 or IL6) in its penultimate moments. In fact, a recent study proposed that cytokine production may even continue in the necroptotic cells after the loss of plasma membrane integrity at the level of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), which remains intact for a relatively longer time after cellular disruption. Although it is not clear whether all these cytokines are sufficiently mature or functional, since they skip post-ER maturation steps and thus exist in “native or immature” form. Nevertheless, these insights underscore the heightened inflammatory potential of necroptosis. Moreover, the delay in plasma membrane rupture during necroptosis may enable a relatively “more ordered” removal and degradation of necroptotic cells through the timely recruitment of phagocytic cells. In the below subsections we discuss the general evidence associated with phagocytic clearance of necroptotic cells and the mechanisms underlying necroptosis-driven inflammation.

3.1. Necroptosis: Innate Immune Attraction and Phagocytic Clearance

11Rapid and orderly clearance of dying cells (i.e., efferocytosis) is very important for tissue homeostasis. Phagocytes that are specialized to clear them need to prevent an unwanted immune response. This is especially important to limit inflammation in response to intracellular materials that leak out of necrotic and necroptotic cells. Even though necroptotic cells successfully delay their rupturing, this delay is typically not as long as apoptosis. The first phase that precedes efferocytosis mainly involves, dying cells releasing “find me” signals and/or chemokines that attract surrounding phagocytes (i.e., innate immune cells or myeloid cells like macrophages and DCs or granulocytic cells such as neutrophils). These phagocytes distinguish dying cells from healthy cells via specific engulfment receptors, which recognize “eat me” signals on the surface of dying cells. Upon internalization, degradation and processing, the phagocytes may elicit a specific response by secretion of pro- or anti-inflammatory factors depending on the nature of the ingested cargo.

12Necroptosis has not been associated with any specific “find me” signal distinct from other such signals typically secreted or released from various dying/dead cells. For a more detailed description of “find me” signals typically released by dying/dead cancer cells, please refer to other more detailed review articles. Pending on the cell type, necroptotic cells secrete a variety of chemokines for efficient myeloid/granulocytes recruitment e.g., CCL2, CXCL8/IL8, CXCL1/2, CSF2. Similarly, ubiquitous DAMPs capable of acting as “find me” signals such as extracellular ATP released post-rupture of the plasma membrane, can recruit phagocytes toward cells undergoing necroptosis. However, it is interesting to note that innate immune cells may differentially react to necrotic or necroptotic cells in terms of chemotaxis, e.g., monocytes and macrophages may show more rapid and sustained attraction towards necrotic cells rather than DCs and neutrophils. In fact, the tendency of accidental necrotic cells to preferentially sustain macrophage recruitment may even be evolutionarily conserved across vertebrates. Nevertheless, the quality as well as the quantity of necroptosis-based innate immune cell recruitment depends on the inflammatory context, type of tissue, fitness of the local circulatory system and overall stress on the target cells. Of note, due to lack of systematic comparative studies, it is currently not clear if there exist strong differences between the recruitment patterns of innate immune cells toward necrotic or necroptotic cells. However, published evidence scattered across different studies suggests a largely overlapping monocytes or macrophages-driven chemotactic response to both cell death modalities. Nevertheless, more comprehensive studies are required to address this gap-in-knowledge.

13Once the innate immune cells have been recruited, they can undertake efferocytosis. Herein, compared to the efferocytosis of apoptotic cells, the clearance of necroptotic cells remains poorly understood. It is proposed that innate immune cells engulf necroptotic cells through macropinocytosis, i.e., endocytosis of small fluid-suspended particles and co-uptake of extracellular fluid, likely generated after the cellular explosion of necrotic or necroptotic cells. Yet, several studies have reported specific necrotic cells-linked biomolecules that facilitate direct engulfment via engagement of cognate scavenger receptors on phagocytes, especially DCs, e.g., necrotic cell-associated keratin or F-actin engaging myeloid DEC205 receptor (also called Lymphocyte Antigen 75 or LY75) or DNGR1 receptor (also called C-type Lectin Domain Containing 9A or CLEC9A), respectively. Beyond these necrotic pro-phagocytic entities, necroptotic cells may also expose some canonical “eat me” signals such as phosphatidylserine (PtdSer). It has been indeed shown that necroptotic cells are engulfed by the macrophages in a PtdSer-dependent manner, which underlines that PtdSer is a ubiquitous “eat me” signal mediating engulfment of several RCD modalities. However, the critical evidence supporting exposure of surface calreticulin (CALR) by necroptotic cells is largely absent. Moreover, CD47, a well-known “do not eat me” signal, has been found to modulate phagocytic clearance of necroptotic cells. Irrespective of these observations, it is generally accepted that the uptake of necroptotic cells might not be as proficient as that of apoptotic cells, although an opposite scenario in which necroptotic cells were efferocytosed more efficiently, has also been proposed.

3.2. Necroptosis-Driven Modulation of Immune Responses

14Necroptosis, as emphasized above, liberates a plethora of DAMPs, while secreting/releasing several inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. The DAMPs that are secreted/released upon necroptosis include: (I) “find me” signals (as described above); (II) intracellular chaperones such as heat-shock proteins (HSPs) and S100 protein family members; (III) alarmins or cytokine-like DAMPs and (IV) nucleic acids (nuclear or mitochondrial DNA). One of the most ubiquitous alarmins released during necroptosis is the high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) protein. These DAMPs usually stimulate the initial sensors of infection or damage, i.e., PRRs on myeloid cells, thereby efficiently co-stimulating them and enabling a better interface between these activated myeloid cells and adaptive immune cells. Such a productive myeloid::lymphoid cell interface can activate antigen-specific cytotoxic CD8+ T cells that can help in the elimination of antigen-expressing entities or diseased cells. The pro-inflammatory DAMPs are proficiently supported by cytokines or chemokines released from these cells, and these factors together coordinate the necroptosis-driven inflammatory response.

15Production of cytokines during necroptosis is not a “bystander” process, since pro-necroptotic proteins such as RIPK1 (as a scaffold) have been found to directly facilitate production of cytokines such as IL6. Similarly, comparative transcriptomics analysis showed that TNF-induced necroptosis promotes the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines in a cell-autonomous fashion, through the direct involvement of pro-inflammatory NF-κB pathways. Interestingly, RIP1/3 can also facilitate inflammasome activation, enabling the stimulation of IL1β and IL18 cytokines. Moreover, there is accumulating evidence that inflammation itself can also regulate necroptosis via cytokines like type I/II IFNs, that can increase the expression of MLKL, which indicates a putative existence of a necroptosis-inflammation auto-fueling loop. However, despite a clear pro-inflammatory phenotype, final immunological outcome of necroptosis may not always be sufficiently immunogenic. This can happen because the simultaneous release of immunosuppressive/tolerogenic as well as homeostatic DAMPs, cytokines or chemokines, can create substantial challenges for a resolved immune response. For instance, concurrent release of such complex and often contradictory modulators of immune responses, at high concentrations, from necroptotic cells has the potential to create a localized “inflammatory storm”-like situation, which is often seen during response to infection. This can facilitate chronic inflammation thereby eliciting differentiation of immunosuppressive myeloid or lymphoid cells. This scenario, depending upon the disease context, can be substantially detrimental and impede disease amelioration.

16Thus, necroptosis and its immunobiology cannot be interpreted in a “black-and-white” manner and should not be applied in a generalized fashion to all pathophysiological situations. It is extremely important to consider the tissue, stress and disease contexts where necroptosis is positioned as well as the duration or amplitude of inflammation elicited by necroptosis in order to sufficiently decipher its disease aiding or impeding effects. This train of thought is especially applicable to a highly complex disease like cancer that spans nearly all known human organ systems, almost all possible stress scenarios (from tumor-associated physico-chemical stress to a plethora of therapeutic agent classes) and often presents with extremely variable inflammatory profiles (from low-to-high basal inflammation as well as T cells ‘cold’-to-‘hot’ tumors).

4. Necroptosis in Oncology

17Necrosis within a tumor, especially in the “core” regions typically deprived of proper nutrient and/or oxygen access, is a well-established phenomenon and such tumor necrosis is classically associated with poor patient prognosis. Accordingly, several peripheral biomarkers of tumor-associated necrosis, such as serum-associated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels, also tend to have a negative prognostic impact in cancer patients. A wide array of stressors can elicit regulated necrosis (e.g., necroptosis) within a tumor (based on largely experimental rather than real-time clinical data) e.g., hypoxia, nutrient starvation, acidosis (due to dysregulated vasculature), conventional anticancer therapies administered at high doses and cytokines or extrinsic cell death-inducing ligands-based pro-necroptotic stimuli produced by myeloid or lymphoid cells infiltrating the tumors (e.g., TNF, IFNs, FAS ligand). In Table 1, we summarize several different chemical or biological therapeutic agents that have been consistently reported to induce necroptosis in various human cancer cells (in experimental conditions). Interestingly, some widely used conventional anticancer therapies have demonstrated pro-necroptotic activities like platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin) and proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib) (Table 1).

18However, the connections between necroptosis (or for that matter any necrotic RCD) and tumor-associated histopathological necrosis cannot be linearly assumed since in the human tumor context, it is nearly impossible to discriminate secondary necrosis, accidental necrosis and regulated forms of necrosis. This is in part because antibodies against typical pro-necroptotic molecules (e.g., phosphorylated forms of RIPK1/3 or MLKL) do not work reliably in the settings of clinically relevant immuno-histochemistry. All of this makes it nearly impossible to benchmark and monitor necroptosis in routine human tumor tissue samples. To compensate for this severe disparity, over the years, researchers have relied on proxy approaches such as exploiting the genetic expression of pro-necroptotic molecules (especially RIPK3 or MLKL genes) as well as their univariate or multivariate impacts on human cancer patient’s survival or anticancer therapy responsiveness to study their correlations with inflammatory or immunological parameters. Interestingly, such studies have indicated that even though pro-necroptotic genes may not be selectively deleted or mutated (as evident from our analyses; Figure 1), yet their expression can still be suppressed via epigenetic mechanisms. For instance, epigenetic events (mostly DNA methylation-driven) can cause RIPK3 protein suppression in several human cancer cell lines, including breast cancer, colorectal cancer (CRC) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (in nearly 2/3rd of >60 human cell lines tested). Interestingly, genome-wide analysis identified that such DNA methylation-driven suppression of RIPK3 levels was oncogene-enforced and accordingly facilitated cancer cells’ ability to avoid necroptosis. Remarkably, this loss of RIPK3 expression was gradually (rather than abruptly) achieved during tumor progression, both in patient tumor biopsies as well as xenograft tumor models, thereby suggesting a role for negative selection pressures against RIPK3. In Table 2, we summarize the three major RIPK3 “silencing” tactics employed by cancer cells according to recent research. DNA hypomethylating agents can restore RIPK3 expression in cancer cells, “rescuing” their necroptotic capacities and enhancing various beneficial effects of chemotherapy, including promotion of anti-tumor immunity.

19Although these mechanistic observations vouch for an anticancer role for pro-necroptotic molecules, and possibly necroptosis, yet independent biomarker-based studies to decipher the prognostic or predictive impact of pro-necroptotic genes in cancer patients have not painted a consistent picture. For instance, while multiple studies have indeed found that, whole tumor-biopsy level, high expression of RIPK3 or even sometimes MLKL may predict prolonged cancer patient survival (Table 3), yet high expression of RIPK1 or MLKL has also been documented to predict worse prognosis for some cancer patients (Table 3). We have summarized in Table 3, various major clinical studies exploring the prognostic/predictive biomarker impact of these pro-necroptotic molecules in cancer patients. Overall, the relationship of pro-necroptotic molecules’ gene-expression with cancer patient’s prognosis seems to be highly context-dependent. For example, the analysis of RIPK3 expression in 74 primary CRC tumors treated with first-line 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) chemotherapy revealed that high expression levels of RIPK3 correlated with a significantly longer overall survival and lower risk of disease progression in CRC patients. Consistent with this, low expression of RIPK1 was correlated with, higher tumor progression in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients and worse prognosis in human hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. In contrast to this, higher expression of RIPK1 was also linked to a worse prognosis and higher metastasis rate in melanoma, potentially due to NF-κB-dependent stimulation of cancer cell proliferation. Finally, a dual prognostic role for MLKL gene expression also emerges from the summary presented in Table 3. For instance, while in breast tumors, high MLKL expression associated with poor prognosis, yet in CRC low MLKL expression predicted shorter overall survival in the patients. Of note, an extensive number of studies using a diversity of murine tumor models (spontaneous as well as transplantable) have also mirrored these clinical dichotomies. Indeed, several studies demonstrate either a pro-tumor or anti-tumor role for pro-necroptotic genes (frequently tested through genetic knock-out or knock-down models) and/or necroptosis (induced via TNF/TRAIL-based ‘cocktails’ or genetic means). Due to a largely clinical focus of this review, we do not discuss these studies in detail except those with clear immunological basis (see below). Yet, we would like to refer the reader to other excellent reviews on this topic.

20In agreement with findings from primary tumors, the role of necroptosis in tumor metastasis (in clinical as well as experimental settings) also seems to be a double-edged sword. For instance, in metastatic lung cancer, loss of RIPK3 was documented to reduce the number of tumor nodules by 38%. However, in contrast, high MLKL expression in cervical SCC has been associated with low histological grade and lymphatic metastasis such that patients with low expression of MLKL exhibited poor prognosis. Similarly, various experimental studies have highlighted the ability of tumors to exploit necroptosis for facilitating metastases. For instance, cancer cells can induce necroptosis in endothelial cells and thereby enable metastasis; or, necroptotic pancreatic cells can upregulate CXCL5 and CXCR2 to facilitate their migration and invasive abilities.

21We believe that the relative inconsistencies in the prognostic/predictive impact of the pro-necroptotic genes may stem from several complicated reasons. Beyond the obvious variations due to cancer-types, organ-of-origin for different tumors and disparate therapeutic or non-therapeutic contexts from which such analyses were derived, also non-necroptotic functions of MLKL or RIPK1/3 (e.g., RIPK1 as a scaffold/survival or RIPK1/3 as pro-apoptotic factors) could contribute to such inconsistencies. Especially for RIPK1/3, myriads of pathophysiological and inflammatory functions completely unrelated to necroptosis have recently emerged. For MLKL such knowledge is scarce, but few publications have indicated a dynamic profile of non-necroptotic functions. Besides that, most of the studies highlighted in Table 3 were done on bulk tumor tissue samples, wherein it is not clear from which source (i.e., cancer cells, immune cells, fibroblasts or other stromal cells), or cellular states (e.g., hypoxia, acidosis, proliferation) these gene expression profiles originate. For example, it is known that hypoxia induces anaerobic glycolytic metabolism and reduces RIPK1/RIPK3 expression thereby conferring resistance to necroptosis. This is crucial because RIPK1/3 or MLKL as well as necroptosis can have very different functional impacts depending on their cells-of-origins. For instance, RIPK1 is heavily expressed by tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) in pancreatic cancer wherein RIPK1 facilitates TAMs-driven immunosuppression (possibly via its scaffolding functions). In fact, these observations instigated the testing of pharmacological inhibitors of RIPK1 in pancreatic cancer patients (with or without combination with anti-PD1 immunotherapy) with the aim to ameliorate the immunosuppressive tumor milieu. Thus, we believe a detailed tumor tissue analyses via single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) that can simultaneously capture the cells-of-origin for these pro-necroptotic genes and their stress-related (genetic) contexts, will be instrumental in solving some of these conundrums. However, nevertheless, the prognostic or predictive role of necroptosis in oncology will remain controversial until a specific biomarker or necroptosis-labelling/profiling technology is discovered, that can consistently specifically identify necroptosis within the complex human tumor tissues and discriminate it from other regulated necrotic cell death modalities.

5.1. Necroptosis-Driven Modulation of Anticancer Immunity

22The tumor immune landscape, unlike the landscape of other immunopathological diseases, cannot be easily integrated within a single paradigm. Even at a very broad level, the tumor immune landscapes tend to be distinguished by highly contrasting features like lymphocyte/IFNγ-dominance, lymphocyte-depletion, immunological silence, inflammation, wound-healing enrichment or TGFβ responses. This is further complicated by sharply different molecular (e.g., antigenicity vs. immunogenicity), cellular (e.g., myeloid vs. lymphoid enriched or depleted) and tissue-level (e.g., immune cells enriching or excluding environments) disorganizations. Herein, necroptosis in cancer cells is expected to mediate cancer-relevant immune responses by facilitating interactions between dying cancer cells and immune cells through the release of DAMPs, cytokines and/or chemokines within the tumor microenvironment; however, such unidirectional immune response seldom exists.

23Depending on the tumor type, the organ-of-origin for a tumor and immune cell types involved, phagocytic clearance of necroptotic cancer cells may create a spectrum of variable inflammatory responses ranging from facilitation of pro-tumor inflammation to anti-tumor immunity (Figure 3). Thus, beyond understanding the immunobiology of necroptosis in cancer, it is also necessary to understand what can predict anticancer inflammatory responses elicited by necroptosis in each tumor milieu. Even independently of the cancer context, it is quite clear that the immunological and pathophysiological profile of necroptosis can be contextually variable. Thus, it is not surprising that such variations would also be visible in a complex disease like cancer thereby limiting our ability to unilaterally label necroptosis as a ubiquitously immunogenic form of cell death in cancer. However, an ideal scenario is the one where we can clearly appreciate as well as benchmark the tolerogenic or immunogenic profiles of necroptosis in cancer.

24A series of evidence emerging from cancer research involving conventional chemotherapeutics, radiotherapy, anticancer vaccines or oncolytic viruses, shows that necroptosis in cancer can be immunogenic, and even exhibit a clearly discernible ICD-like profile (Figure 3). For example, TNF or chemotherapy (mitoxantrone/oxaliplatin)-driven necroptosis in cancer cells releases several different DAMPs such as ATP and HMGB1, thereby facilitating tumor-regressive anticancer immunity. Moreover, disruption of pro-necroptotic factors in these settings suppresses anti-tumor immunity, thus mechanistically connecting necroptosis with pro-immunogenic effects in cancer. Similarly, ablative radiation therapy can induce necroptosis in non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and mediate HMGB1-driven immune responses. Furthermore, two separate studies have demonstrated that cervical cancer cells, treated with a viral dsRNA analogue (polyI:C), experienced necroptosis accompanied by release of the IL1α cytokine that elicited activation of DCs and DCs-derived IL12-driven immune response. In fact, absence of RIPK3 in cancer cells is documented to reduce the type I IFNs-mediated immune responses following treatment with chemotherapy; such that, failure to induce necroptosis (due to lack of RIPK3 or MLKL) can hamper tumor-associated immune infiltration after chemotherapy. In line with this, oncolytic virus (Newcastle disease virus)-elicited necroptosis is also capable of liberating an ICD-like DAMPs profile and propagating potent and long-lasting anti-tumor immunity driven dominantly by antigen-specific CD8+ T cells. More refined mechanistic studies wherein necroptosis was encouraged via genetic methods, also recognized that necroptotic cancer cells can trigger CD8+ T cells-driven anti-tumor immunity. However there was one notable exception among these latter studies that was not reported in therapeutically induced necroptosis studies: contingent on the genetic approach applied for eliciting necroptosis, either DAMPs or NF-κB-driven inflammatory transcriptional program, but not both simultaneously, were observed to mediate the pro-immunological effects of necroptosis. Considering the pleiotropic nature of immunologically or therapeutically induced necroptosis, it could be postulated that such differences between DAMPs vs. a NF-κB inflammatory program may get over-represented due to the relatively “cleaner background” of genetically driven necroptosis. Nevertheless, based on ICD studies, both DAMPs and at least some (if not all) NF-κB-based inflammatory factors are crucial for anticancer immunity. Thus, necroptotic modalities that can strike a balance between the two signaling paradigms may have the broadest possible advantage in various tumor contexts.

25In several tumor scenarios, where the tumor milieu is depleted of effector immune cells, necroptosis may also fail to elicit strong immunogenic reactions, although in some cases, necroptotic cancer cells can exhibit threshold levels of immunogenicity. While these threshold levels of immunogenicity may not be high enough to autonomously drive tumor regression, yet they may enable other immunotherapeutic paradigms to elicit anticancer immunity. This could be particularly relevant in cancer types that, (I) are enriched in stable/immunodominant antigens, (II) have a limited burden of immunosuppressive cytokines and/or (III) have augmented mutational burdens due to treatment with genotoxic conventional anticancer therapies. Curiously, a recent study reported that, even in absence of a stable or immunodominant cancer antigen, necroptosis-driven anticancer immunity may continue to function (to a certain extent), better than apoptosis. This may highlight the advantages of an “unorganized” antigen uptake (that can be broader) over the more organized form as seen during apoptosis (which could be subject to degradative processes). Moreover, this finding corresponds well with the initial observation that necroptotic cells are internalized (in contrast to apoptotic cells) via macropinocytosis associated with co-uptake of the extracellular content. These data also underline the importance of cell death-type in defining the amplitude of the immune response. Lessons learned from the recent clinical immuno-oncology scenarios show that translation of necroptosis in human settings is far more likely to encounter immunosuppressive rather than immunosupportive or immunogenic paradigms. Herein, necroptosis does show tendencies to induce tolerogenic immune reactions and/or pro-tumorigenic inflammation (Figure 3), which may also be a “remnant” of its necrotic morphology. For instance, irrespective of the pathway, accidental necrotic cancer cells have disparities in generating long-term antigen-specific CD8+ T cell responses and may even release factors that can directly block CD8+ T cells’ cross-priming. In line with this, necrotic cancer cells (irrespective of accidental or regulated forms) are broadly known to boost tumor infiltration by immunosuppressive myeloid or lymphoid cells like regulatory T cells (Tregs), anti-inflammatory (M2) macrophages or TAMs and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs). Similarly, TNF-driven necroptosis in cancer cells can propagate RIPK3-dependent immunosuppression by ablating the release of pro-inflammatory factors, despite proficiently releasing various DAMPs. Necroptosis in cancer can also: exhibit defective recruitment of neutrophils, lymphocytes or monocytes in some contexts; facilitate colitis-driven CRC progression; elicit tolerogenic phagocytic clearance of cellular corpses; and show exposure of tolerogenic “eat me” signals such as PtdSer. These distinctions get further complicated if necroptosis is positioned within a tumor tissue context. For example, IL1α release from necroptotic cancer cells can stimulate the “bystander” stromal cells to proliferate thereby auto-fueling tumor progression via stroma-derived growth factors. Similarly, necroptosis-associated release of reactive nitrogen intermediates (RNI) and/or ROS, at threshold levels, may facilitate pro-tumorigenic processes. Moreover, some chemokines released from necroptotic cells can in fact support pro-cancerous processes, e.g., RIPK3/RIPK1-driven CXCL1 in pancreatic cancer can facilitate tumor progression (via TAMs and MDSCs) by restricting infiltration of highly immunogenic T or B cells.

26In conclusion, this shows that the contextual nature of necroptosis immunobiology, when merged with the even more complicated tumor immune landscape, can create a highly unpredictable scenario (Figure 3). A potential “two-step” solution to resolve this situation could be, to objectively characterize the immunobiology of a tumor context and then study (therapeutically or immunologically induced) necroptosis in that setting, in order to fully decipher this complex crosstalk. The main experimental challenge in this situation would be to achieve “pure” necroptosis via physiological necroptosis inducers (i.e., cytokines like TNF or IFNs) in an in vivo tumour setting. This can possibly be achieved by creating cancer cells that are simultaneously deficient in major molecules that facilitate other RCD pathways over necroptosis (e.g., caspase-8) and proficient in expressing necroptosis-sensitising proteins (e.g., SMAC overexpression). A combination of advanced genetic engineering techniques (e.g., CRISPR/Cas9) with efficient tumour-targeting cytokine therapies can enable creation of such an ideal experimental setting wherein the immunological significance of necroptotic cancer cells in a tumour can be objectively deciphered. Several such studies in various tumor immune landscapes would ultimately create a clear roadmap to inform decisions on whether to induce or inhibit necroptosis to cause tumor regression. Nevertheless, it is also worth the effort to understand which immunotherapies can be combined with necroptosis to either synergize with it, or overcome its limitations, thereby resulting in long-term anticancer efficacy.

5.2. Necroptosis and Combinatorial Cancer Immunotherapy

27Immunotherapies targeting immune-checkpoints, as discussed in the introduction section, have revolutionized the field of oncology and led to the creation of an immuno-oncology arm of anticancer treatments in less than a decade since the approval of the first ICB. Immune-checkpoints refer to inhibitory pathways of the immune-system that are crucial for maintaining self-tolerance and restraining the overall duration of an immune response. Since most immune-checkpoints act through extracellular ligand–receptor binding interactions, they can be easily blocked via antibodies acting as ICBs. CTLA4 was the first FDA-approved ICB target, shortly followed by the PD1-PDL1 axis. Since then, ICBs targeting other immune-checkpoints (e.g., TIM3, LAG3, VISTA) have entered several clinical trials. ICBs have indeed markedly improved cancer patients’ outcomes, but several patients still fail to sufficiently respond to these immunotherapies. To overcome this problem, combination of ICBs with existing conventional anticancer therapy are being extensively studied in both clinical as well as pre-clinical studies. The efficacy of ICBs can be substantially boosted when co-administered with cytotoxic therapies that can facilitate effector T cell activity or at the very least, support a pro-inflammatory milieu. Hence, as necroptotic cancer cells can boost pro-inflammatory (myeloid) signals, current endeavors aim to decipher whether necroptosis can successfully synergize with ICBs to create new immunotherapeutics. In mice, combining a biomimetic vaccine composed of an ‘artificial necroptotic cancer cell’ (αHSP70p-CM-CaP) with anti-PD1 antibodies completely regressed tumors and provided long-term anti-tumor immunity. Similarly, inducing spontaneous necroptosis in subcutaneous murine tumors by overexpressing MLKL mRNA synergized efficiently with anti-PD1 immunotherapy to elicit potent anti-tumor immunity. In a very different approach, treatment of mice with ICBs and simultaneous injection of necroptotic fibroblasts (rather than cancer cells themselves) into the tumor, led to improved survival of tumor-bearing mice and induction of long-term anticancer immune memory. These diverse mechanistic studies highlight the putative benefits of combining ICBs with necroptosis in cancer immunotherapy context.

28Although the highly artificial nature of necroptosis induction in most of these studies limits their direct translational potential in human settings, yet it would be interesting to test whether tumor necrosis achieved by pro-necroptotic anticancer therapies (Table 1) associates with better responses to ICBs in multi-arm clinical trials. It is worth mentioning here that the serum LDH level, a typical marker of widespread tumor cell death and a negative prognostic biomarker in basal conditions, tends to associate with positive clinical responses to ICBs in melanoma. Thus, it would be interesting to systematically decipher whether these observations may fulfil an unknown benefit of necrosis/necroptosis in ICBs-based treatment settings.

6. Concluding Remarks

29It is amply clear that necroptosis and its immunobiology cannot be applied to complex pathologies such as cancer in a “black-and-white” or generalized manner. While understanding necroptosis-driven immune responses is crucial, yet it is equally important to understand where, or when, do such immune responses work or fail. Expecting necroptosis to work consistently as an immunogenic pathway in all tumor contexts is probably a faulty strategy. Understanding the differences in necroptosis-associated responses due to tumor tissue (localization or origin), the nature of necroptosis-inducing stress and type of immune cells contacting the necroptotic cancer cells will be the key to unravel its disease-aiding or -impeding effects. Moreover, the current inability to discriminate necroptosis from other forms of regulated necrotic cell death modalities in oncological settings makes it extremely difficult to appreciate the real impact of necroptosis. Thus, there is a strong and urgent need for real-time and reliable biomarkers that can identify necroptosis in human tumor tissue which will help to specifically discriminate it from other forms of regulated cell death modalities. Until such biomarkers are discovered, the immunological and prognostic role of necroptosis in oncology will remain highly controversial. In addition, it has been also shown that necroptosis is often associated with inflammation which, in some cases, could contribute to progression of cancer and promote resistance to anticancer treatments. For example, recently several studies have shown that necroptosis triggers chronic colon inflammation that can facilitate colon cancer development. Therefore, knowledge of the precise molecular mechanisms and signaling events which will define the role of necroptosis as cancer inducer and the role of necroptosis as cancer eradicator is highly needed, to allow better development of novel therapeutic approaches in a disease- and tissue- dependent manner. Finally, several studies demonstrating the immunological effects of necroptosis in cancer are still based on in vitro experiments or on murine allograft/xenograft tumor models, thereby increasing the urgency to create human translation studies to systematically understand the therapeutic utility of necroptosis in immuno-oncology.

References 264

1.
Gotwals P., Cameron S., Cipolletta D., Cremasco V., Crystal A., Hewes B., Mueller B., Quaratino S., Sabatos-Peyton C., Petruzzelli L., et al. Prospects for combining targeted and conventional cancer therapy with immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2017;17:286-301.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc.2017.17
2.
Joshi S., Durden D.L. Combinatorial approach to improve cancer immunotherapy: Rational drug design strategy to simultaneously hit multiple targets to kill tumor cells and to activate the immune system. J. Oncol. 2019;2019:5245034.
Not in our library10.1155/2019/5245034
3.
Combination of CTLA-4 and PD-1 blockers for treatment of cancer · 2019
No notice
4.
Current landscape and future of dual anti-CTLA4 and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade immunotherapy in cancer; lessons learned from clinical trials with melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) · 2018
No notice
5.
Novel immune checkpoint targets: moving beyond PD-1 and CTLA-4 · 2019
No notice
6.
Łuksza M., Riaz N., Makarov V., Balachandran V.P., Hellmann M.D., Solovyov A., Rizvi N.A., Merghoub T., Levine A.J., Chan T.A., et al. A neoantigen fitness model predicts tumour response to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. Nature. 2017;551:517-520.
Not in our library10.1038/nature24473
7.
Galon J., Bruni D. Approaches to treat immune hot, altered and cold tumours with combination immunotherapies. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2019;18:197-218.
Not in our library10.1038/s41573-018-0007-y
8.
Quaranta V., Schmid M.C. Macrophage-Mediated Subversion of Anti-Tumour Immunity. Cells. 2019;8:747.
Not in our library10.3390/cells8070747
9.
Linnemann C., van Buuren M.M., Bies L., Verdegaal E.M.E., Schotte R., Calis J.J.A., Behjati S., Velds A., Hilkmann H., Atmioui D.E., et al. High-throughput epitope discovery reveals frequent recognition of neo-antigens by CD4+ T cells in human melanoma. Nat. Med. 2015;21:81-85.
Not in our library10.1038/nm.3773
10.
Kotecki N., Awada A. Checkpoints inhibitors in the (neo)adjuvant setting of solid tumors: Lessons learnt and perspectives. Curr. Opin. Oncol. 2019;31:439-444.
Not in our library10.1097/cco.0000000000000565
11.
Garg A.D., Vandenberk L., Van Woensel M., Belmans J., Schaaf M., Boon L., De Vleeschouwer S., Agostinis P. Preclinical efficacy of immune-checkpoint monotherapy does not recapitulate corresponding biomarkers-based clinical predictions in glioblastoma. Oncoimmunology. 2017;6:e1295903.
Not in our library10.1080/2162402x.2017.1295903
12.
Dempke W.C.M., Fenchel K., Uciechowski P., Dale S.P. Second- and third-generation drugs for immuno-oncology treatment-The more the better? Eur. J. Cancer. 2017;74:55-72.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2017.01.001
13.
Adams J.L., Smothers J., Srinivasan R., Hoos A. Big opportunities for small molecules in immuno-oncology. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2015;14:603-622.
Not in our library10.1038/nrd4596
14.
Paulson K.G., Lahman M.C., Chapuis A.G., Brownell I. Immunotherapy for skin cancer. Int. Immunol. 2019;31:465-475.
Not in our library10.1093/intimm/dxz012
15.
Duffy M.J., Crown J. Biomarkers for Predicting Response to Immunotherapy with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer Patients. Clin. Chem. 2019;65:1228-1238.
Not in our library10.1373/clinchem.2019.303644
16.
Meije C.B., Swart G.W.M., Lepoole C., Das P.K., Van den Oord J.J. Antigenic profiles of individual-matched pairs of primary and melanoma metastases. Hum. Pathol. 2009;40:1399-1407.
Not in our library10.1016/j.humpath.2008.11.018
17.
Gubin M.M., Artyomov M.N., Mardis E.R., Schreiber R.D. Tumor neoantigens: Building a framework for personalized cancer immunotherapy. J. Clin. Investig. 2015;125:3413-3421.
Not in our library10.1172/jci80008
18.
Peters H.L., Tripathi S.C., Kerros C., Katayama H., Garber H.R., St John L.S., Federico L., Meraz I.M., Roth J.A., Sepesi B., et al. Serine proteases enhance immunogenic antigen presentation on lung cancer cells. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2017;5:319-329.
Not in our library10.1158/2326-6066.cir-16-0141
19.
Chung E.Y., Liu J., Homma Y., Zhang Y., Brendolan A., Saggese M., Han J., Silverstein R., Selleri L., Ma X. Interleukin-10 expression in macrophages during phagocytosis of apoptotic cells is mediated by homeodomain proteins Pbx1 and Prep-1. Immunity. 2007;27:952-964.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2007.11.014
20.
Grivennikov S.I., Greten F.R., Karin M. Immunity, inflammation, and cancer. Cell. 2010;140:883-899.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2010.01.025
21.
Spranger S., Dai D., Horton B., Gajewski T.F. Tumor-Residing Batf3 Dendritic Cells Are Required for Effector T Cell Trafficking and Adoptive T Cell Therapy. Cancer Cell. 2017;31:711-723.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2017.04.003
22.
Pardoll D.M. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2012;12:252-264.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc3239
23.
Sharma P., Allison J.P. The future of immune checkpoint therapy. Science. 2015;348:56-61.
Not in our library10.1126/science.aaa8172
24.
Okoye I.S., Xu L., Walker J., Elahi S. The glucocorticoids prednisone and dexamethasone differentially modulate T cell function in response to anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 immune checkpoint blockade. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2020;69:1423-1436.
Not in our library10.1007/s00262-020-02555-2
25.
Chikuma S. CTLA-4, an Essential Immune-Checkpoint for T-Cell Activation. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 2017;410:99-126.
Not in our library10.1007/82_2017_61
26.
Wei S.C., Levine J.H., Cogdill A.P., Zhao Y., Anang N.-A.A.S., Andrews M.C., Sharma P., Wang J., Wargo J.A., Pe’er D., et al. Distinct Cellular Mechanisms Underlie Anti-CTLA-4 and Anti-PD-1 Checkpoint Blockade. Cell. 2017;170:1120-1133.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2017.07.024
27.
Zitvogel L., Tesniere A., Kroemer G. Cancer despite immunosurveillance: Immunoselection and immunosubversion. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2006;6:715-727.
Not in our library10.1038/nri1936
28.
Henrickson S.E., Perro M., Loughhead S.M., Senman B., Stutte S., Quigley M., Alexe G., Iannacone M., Flynn M.P., Omid S., et al. Antigen availability determines CD8+ T cell-dendritic cell interaction kinetics and memory fate decisions. Immunity. 2013;39:496-507.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2013.08.034
29.
Griffith T.S., Ferguson T.A. Cell death in the maintenance and abrogation of tolerance: The five Ws of dying cells. Immunity. 2011;35:456-466.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2011.08.011
30.
Kreda S.M., Pickles R.J., Lazarowski E.R., Boucher R.C. G-protein-coupled receptors as targets for gene transfer vectors using natural small-molecule ligands. Nat. Biotechnol. 2000;18:635-640.
Not in our library10.1038/76479
31.
Komohara Y., Harada M., Ishihara Y., Suekane S., Noguchi M., Yamada A., Matsuoka K., Itoh K. HLA-G as a target molecule in specific immunotherapy against renal cell carcinoma. Oncol. Rep. 2007;18:1463-1468.
Not in our library10.3892/or.18.6.1463
32.
Kailayangiri S., Altvater B., Spurny C., Jamitzky S., Schelhaas S., Jacobs A.H., Wiek C., Roellecke K., Hanenberg H., Hartmann W., et al. Targeting Ewing sarcoma with activated and GD2-specific chimeric antigen receptor-engineered human NK cells induces upregulation of immune-inhibitory HLA-G. Oncoimmunology. 2017;6:e1250050.
Not in our library10.1080/2162402x.2016.1250050
33.
Classification of current anticancer immunotherapies · 2014
No notice
34.
Garg A.D., Dudek A.M., Agostinis P. Cancer immunogenicity, danger signals, and DAMPs: What, when, and how? Biofactors. 2013;39:355-367.
Not in our library10.1002/biof.1125
35.
Blankenstein T., Coulie P.G., Gilboa E., Jaffee E.M. The determinants of tumour immunogenicity. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2012;12:307-313.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc3246
36.
Palucka K., Banchereau J. Cancer immunotherapy via dendritic cells. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2012;12:265-277.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc3258
37.
Togashi Y., Shitara K., Nishikawa H. Regulatory T cells in cancer immunosuppression—Implications for anticancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2019;16:356-371.
Not in our library10.1038/s41571-019-0175-7
38.
Galluzzi L., Senovilla L., Zitvogel L., Kroemer G. The secret ally: Immunostimulation by anticancer drugs. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2012;11:215-233.
Not in our library10.1038/nrd3626
39.
Pentimalli F., Grelli S., Di Daniele N., Melino G., Amelio I. Cell death pathologies: Targeting death pathways and the immune system for cancer therapy. Genes Immun. 2019;20:539-554.
Not in our library10.1038/s41435-018-0052-x
40.
Shalapour S., Font-Burgada J., Di Caro G., Zhong Z., Sanchez-Lopez E., Dhar D., Willimsky G., Ammirante M., Strasner A., Hansel D.E., et al. Immunosuppressive plasma cells impede T-cell-dependent immunogenic chemotherapy. Nature. 2015;521:94-98.
Not in our library10.1038/nature14395
41.
Smyth M.J., Ngiow S.F., Ribas A., Teng M.W.L. Combination cancer immunotherapies tailored to the tumour microenvironment. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2016;13:143-158.
Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.209
42.
Voorwerk L., Slagter M., Horlings H.M., Sikorska K., van de Vijver K.K., de Maaker M., Nederlof I., Kluin R.J.C., Warren S., Ong S., et al. Immune induction strategies in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer to enhance the sensitivity to PD-1 blockade: The TONIC trial. Nat. Med. 2019;25:920-928.
Not in our library10.1038/s41591-019-0432-4
43.
Trial watch: dendritic cell vaccination for cancer immunotherapy · 2019
Not checked
44.
Sadeghzadeh M., Bornehdeli S., Mohahammadrezakhani H., Abolghasemi M., Poursaei E., Asadi M., Zafari V., Aghebati-Maleki L., Shanehbandi D. Dendritic cell therapy in cancer treatment; the state-of-the-art. Life Sci. 2020;254:117580.
Not in our library10.1016/j.lfs.2020.117580
45.
Lee J., Lee Y., Xu L., White R., Sullenger B.A. Differential Induction of Immunogenic Cell Death and Interferon Expression in Cancer Cells by Structured ssRNAs. Mol. Ther. 2017;25:1295-1305.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ymthe.2017.03.014
46.
Inoue H., Tani K. Multimodal immunogenic cancer cell death as a consequence of anticancer cytotoxic treatments. Cell Death Differ. 2014;21:39-49.
Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2013.84
47.
Casares N., Pequignot M.O., Tesniere A., Ghiringhelli F., Roux S., Chaput N., Schmitt E., Hamai A., Hervas-Stubbs S., Obeid M., et al. Caspase-dependent immunogenicity of doxorubicin-induced tumor cell death. J. Exp. Med. 2005;202:1691-1701.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.20050915
48.
Errington F., Jones J., Merrick A., Bateman A., Harrington K., Gough M., O’Donnell D., Selby P., Vile R., Melcher A. Fusogenic membrane glycoprotein-mediated tumour cell fusion activates human dendritic cells for enhanced IL-12 production and T-cell priming. Gene Ther. 2006;13:138-149.
Not in our library10.1038/sj.gt.3302609
49.
Gough M.J., Melcher A.A., Crittenden M.R., Sanchez-Perez L., Voellmy R., Vile R.G. Induction of cell stress through gene transfer of an engineered heat shock transcription factor enhances tumor immunogenicity. Gene Ther. 2004;11:1099-1104.
Not in our library10.1038/sj.gt.3302274
50.
Garg A.D., Coulie P.G., Van den Eynde B.J., Agostinis P. Integrating Next-Generation Dendritic Cell Vaccines into the Current Cancer Immunotherapy Landscape. Trends Immunol. 2017;38:577-593.
Not in our library10.1016/j.it.2017.05.006
51.
Molecular and Translational Classifications of DAMPs in Immunogenic Cell Death · 2015
No notice
52.
Galluzzi L., Vitale I., Aaronson S.A., Abrams J.M., Adam D., Agostinis P., Alnemri E.S., Altucci L., Amelio I., Andrews D.W., et al. Molecular mechanisms of cell death: Recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018. Cell Death Differ. 2018;25:486-541.
Not in our library10.1038/s41418-017-0012-4
53.
Apoptosis, autophagy, necroptosis, and cancer metastasis · 2015
No notice
54.
Consensus guidelines for the definition, detection and interpretation of immunogenic cell death · 2020
Corrected
55.
Trial watch: chemotherapy-induced immunogenic cell death in immuno-oncology · 2020
Not checked
56.
van Vloten J.P., Workenhe S.T., Wootton S.K., Mossman K.L., Bridle B.W. Critical Interactions between Immunogenic Cancer Cell Death, Oncolytic Viruses, and the Immune System Define the Rational Design of Combination Immunotherapies. J. Immunol. 2018;200:450-458.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.1701021
57.
Immunogenic cell death induced by a new photodynamic therapy based on photosens and photodithazine · 2019
No notice
58.
Sprooten J., Agostinis P., Garg A.D. Type I Interferons and Dendritic Cells in Cancer Immunotherapy. Int. Rev. Cell Mol. Biol. 2019;348:217-262.
Not in our library10.1016/bs.ircmb.2019.06.001
59.
Garg A.D., Agostinis P. Cell death and immunity in cancer: From danger signals to mimicry of pathogen defense responses. Immunol. Rev. 2017;280:126-148.
Not in our library10.1111/imr.12574
60.
Garg A.D., Vandenberk L., Fang S., Fasche T., Van Eygen S., Maes J., Van Woensel M., Koks C., Vanthillo N., Graf N., et al. Pathogen response-like recruitment and activation of neutrophils by sterile immunogenic dying cells drives neutrophil-mediated residual cell killing. Cell Death Differ. 2017;24:832-843.
Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2017.15
61.
Ravichandran K.S. Beginnings of a good apoptotic meal: The find-me and eat-me signaling pathways. Immunity. 2011;35:445-455.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2011.09.004
62.
Yamazaki T., Vanpouille-Box C., Demaria S., Galluzzi L. Immunogenic Cell Death Driven by Radiation-Impact on the Tumor Microenvironment. Cancer Treat. Res. 2020;180:281-296.
Not in our library10.1007/978-3-030-38862-1_10
63.
Aaes T.L., Kaczmarek A., Delvaeye T., De Craene B., De Koker S., Heyndrickx L., Delrue I., Taminau J., Wiernicki B., De Groote P., et al. Vaccination with Necroptotic Cancer Cells Induces Efficient Anti-tumor Immunity. Cell Rep. 2016;15:274-287.
Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2016.03.037
64.
The molecular machinery of regulated cell death · 2019
No notice
65.
Kaczmarek A., Vandenabeele P., Krysko D.V. Necroptosis: The release of damage-associated molecular patterns and its physiological relevance. Immunity. 2013;38:209-223.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2013.02.003
66.
Hanahan D., Weinberg R.A. Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell. 2011;144:646-674.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013
67.
Fulda S. Targeting apoptosis for anticancer therapy. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2015;31:84-88.
Not in our library10.1016/j.semcancer.2014.05.002
68.
GISTIC2.0 facilitates sensitive and confident localization of the targets of focal somatic copy-number alteration in human cancers · 2011
No notice
69.
Chan F.K.-M. Fueling the flames: Mammalian programmed necrosis in inflammatory diseases. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2012;4:a008805.
Not in our library10.1101/cshperspect.a008805
70.
Friedmann Angeli J.P., Krysko D.V., Conrad M. Ferroptosis at the crossroads of cancer-acquired drug resistance and immune evasion. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2019;19:405-414.
Not in our library10.1038/s41568-019-0149-1
71.
The role of pyroptosis in cancer: pro-cancer or pro-“host”? · 2019
No notice
72.
Vanden Berghe T., Linkermann A., Jouan-Lanhouet S., Walczak H., Vandenabeele P. Regulated necrosis: The expanding network of non-apoptotic cell death pathways. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2014;15:135-147.
Not in our library10.1038/nrm3737
73.
Minagawa S., Yoshida M., Araya J., Hara H., Imai H., Kuwano K. Regulated necrosis in pulmonary disease: A focus on necroptosis and ferroptosis. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 2020;62:554-562.
Not in our library10.1165/rcmb.2019-0337tr
74.
Nair P., Lu M., Petersen S., Ashkenazi A. Apoptosis initiation through the cell-extrinsic pathway. Meth. Enzymol. 2014;544:99-128.
Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-12-417158-9.00005-4
75.
Fulda S., Debatin K.M. Extrinsic versus intrinsic apoptosis pathways in anticancer chemotherapy. Oncogene. 2006;25:4798-4811.
Not in our library10.1038/sj.onc.1209608
76.
Fritsch M., Günther S.D., Schwarzer R., Albert M.-C., Schorn F., Werthenbach J.P., Schiffmann L.M., Stair N., Stocks H., Seeger J.M., et al. Caspase-8 is the molecular switch for apoptosis, necroptosis and pyroptosis. Nature. 2019;575:683-687.
Not in our library10.1038/s41586-019-1770-6
77.
Shlomovitz I., Zargarian S., Erlich Z., Edry-Botzer L., Gerlic M. Distinguishing Necroptosis from Apoptosis. Methods Mol. Biol. 2018;1857:35-51.
Not in our library10.1007/978-1-4939-8754-2_4
78.
Vanden Berghe T., Kaiser W.J., Bertrand M.J., Vandenabeele P. Molecular crosstalk between apoptosis, necroptosis, and survival signaling. Mol. Cell. Oncol. 2015;2:e975093.
Not in our library10.4161/23723556.2014.975093
79.
Galluzzi L., Kepp O., Krautwald S., Kroemer G., Linkermann A. Molecular mechanisms of regulated necrosis. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2014;35:24-32.
Not in our library10.1016/j.semcdb.2014.02.006
80.
Thomas L.R., Johnson R.L., Reed J.C., Thorburn A. The C-terminal tails of tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) and Fas receptors have opposing functions in Fas-associated death domain (FADD) recruitment and can regulate agonist-specific mechanisms of receptor activation. J. Biol. Chem. 2004;279:52479-52486.
Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m409578200
81.
Schütze S., Tchikov V., Schneider-Brachert W. Regulation of TNFR1 and CD95 signalling by receptor compartmentalization. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2008;9:655-662.
Not in our library10.1038/nrm2430
82.
Grootjans S., Vanden Berghe T., Vandenabeele P. Initiation and execution mechanisms of necroptosis: An overview. Cell Death Differ. 2017;24:1184-1195.
Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2017.65
83.
Moreno-Gonzalez G., Vandenabeele P., Krysko D.V. Necroptosis: A novel cell death modality and its potential relevance for critical care medicine. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2016;194:415-428.
Not in our library10.1164/rccm.201510-2106ci
84.
Rodriguez D.A., Weinlich R., Brown S., Guy C., Fitzgerald P., Dillon C.P., Oberst A., Quarato G., Low J., Cripps J.G., et al. Characterization of RIPK3-mediated phosphorylation of the activation loop of MLKL during necroptosis. Cell Death Differ. 2016;23:76-88.
Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2015.70
85.
Moujalled D.M., Cook W.D., Murphy J.M., Vaux D.L. Necroptosis induced by RIPK3 requires MLKL but not Drp1. Cell Death Dis. 2014;5:e1086.
Not in our library10.1038/cddis.2014.18
86.
Poly-ubiquitination in TNFR1-mediated necroptosis · 2016
No notice
87.
Vercammen D., Brouckaert G., Denecker G., Van deaaa 1Craen M., Declercq W., Fiers W., Vandenabeele P. Dual signaling of the Fas receptor: Initiation of both apoptotic and necrotic cell death pathways. J. Exp. Med. 1998;188:919-930.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.188.5.919
88.
Vercammen D., Beyaert R., Denecker G., Goossens V., Van Loo G., Declercq W., Grooten J., Fiers W., Vandenabeele P. Inhibition of caspases increases the sensitivity of L929 cells to necrosis mediated by tumor necrosis factor. J. Exp. Med. 1998;187:1477-1485.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.187.9.1477
89.
Liu X., Shi F., Li Y., Yu X., Peng S., Li W., Luo X., Cao Y. Post-translational modifications as key regulators of TNF-induced necroptosis. Cell Death Dis. 2016;7:e2293.
Not in our library10.1038/cddis.2016.197
90.
Declercq W., Denecker G., Fiers W., Vandenabeele P. Cooperation of both TNF receptors in inducing apoptosis: Involvement of the TNF receptor-associated factor binding domain of the TNF receptor 75. J. Immunol. 1998;161:390-399.
Not in our library
91.
Hsu H., Shu H.B., Pan M.G., Goeddel D.V. TRADD-TRAF2 and TRADD-FADD interactions define two distinct TNF receptor 1 signal transduction pathways. Cell. 1996;84:299-308.
Not in our library10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80984-8
92.
Zheng L., Bidere N., Staudt D., Cubre A., Orenstein J., Chan F.K., Lenardo M. Competitive control of independent programs of tumor necrosis factor receptor-induced cell death by TRADD and RIP1. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2006;26:3505-3513.
Not in our library10.1128/mcb.26.9.3505-3513.2006
93.
Jackson-Bernitsas D.G., Ichikawa H., Takada Y., Myers J.N., Lin X.L., Darnay B.G., Chaturvedi M.M., Aggarwal B.B. Evidence that TNF-TNFR1-TRADD-TRAF2-RIP-TAK1-IKK pathway mediates constitutive NF-kappaB activation and proliferation in human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oncogene. 2007;26:1385-1397.
Not in our library10.1038/sj.onc.1209945
94.
Necroptosis: a regulated inflammatory mode of cell death · 2018
No notice
95.
Cellular Stress Responses: Cell Survival and Cell Death · 2010
No notice
96.
Vandenabeele P., Galluzzi L., Vanden Berghe T., Kroemer G. Molecular mechanisms of necroptosis: An ordered cellular explosion. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2010;11:700-714.
Not in our library10.1038/nrm2970
97.
Huang X., Xiao F., Li Y., Qian W., Ding W., Ye X. Bypassing drug resistance by triggering necroptosis: Recent advances in mechanisms and its therapeutic exploitation in leukemia. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2018;37:310.
Not in our library10.1186/s13046-018-0976-z
98.
Li H., Kobayashi M., Blonska M., You Y., Lin X. Ubiquitination of RIP is required for tumor necrosis factor alpha-induced NF-kappaB activation. J. Biol. Chem. 2006;281:13636-13643.
Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m600620200
99.
Ea C.-K., Deng L., Xia Z.-P., Pineda G., Chen Z.J. Activation of IKK by TNFalpha requires site-specific ubiquitination of RIP1 and polyubiquitin binding by NEMO. Mol. Cell. 2006;22:245-257.
Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2006.03.026
100.
Micheau O., Lens S., Gaide O., Alevizopoulos K., Tschopp J. NF-kappaB signals induce the expression of c-FLIP. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2001;21:5299-5305.
Not in our library10.1128/mcb.21.16.5299-5305.2001
101.
Dondelinger Y., Vandenabeele P., Bertrand M.J. Regulation of RIPK1’s cell death function by phosphorylation. Cell Cycle. 2016;15:5-6.
Not in our library10.1080/15384101.2015.1112688
102.
In E.-J., Lee Y., Koppula S., Kim T.-Y., Han J.-H., Lee K.-H., Kang T.-B. Identification and characterization of NTB451 as a potential inhibitor of necroptosis. Molecules. 2018;23:2884.
Not in our library10.3390/molecules23112884
103.
Bozec D., Iuga A.C., Roda G., Dahan S., Yeretssian G. Critical function of the necroptosis adaptor RIPK3 in protecting from intestinal tumorigenesis. Oncotarget. 2016;7:46384-46400.
Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.10135
104.
Cai Z., Zhang A., Choksi S., Li W., Li T., Zhang X.-M., Liu Z.-G. Activation of cell-surface proteases promotes necroptosis, inflammation and cell migration. Cell Res. 2016;26:886-900.
Not in our library10.1038/cr.2016.87
105.
O’Donnell M.A., Perez-Jimenez E., Oberst A., Ng A., Massoumi R., Xavier R., Green D.R., Ting A.T. Caspase 8 inhibits programmed necrosis by processing CYLD. Nat. Cell Biol. 2011;13:1437-1442.
Not in our library10.1038/ncb2362
106.
Li J., McQuade T., Siemer A.B., Napetschnig J., Moriwaki K., Hsiao Y.-S., Damko E., Moquin D., Walz T., McDermott A., et al. The RIP1/RIP3 necrosome forms a functional amyloid signaling complex required for programmed necrosis. Cell. 2012;150:339-350.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2012.06.019
107.
Murphy J.M., Silke J. Ars Moriendi; the art of dying well—New insights into the molecular pathways of necroptotic cell death. EMBO Rep. 2014;15:155-164.
Not in our library10.1002/embr.201337970
108.
Remijsen Q., Goossens V., Grootjans S., Van den Haute C., Vanlangenakker N., Dondelinger Y., Roelandt R., Bruggeman I., Goncalves A., Bertrand M.J.M., et al. Depletion of RIPK3 or MLKL blocks TNF-driven necroptosis and switches towards a delayed RIPK1 kinase-dependent apoptosis. Cell Death Dis. 2014;5:e1004.
Not in our library10.1038/cddis.2013.531
109.
Dillon C.P., Weinlich R., Rodriguez D.A., Cripps J.G., Quarato G., Gurung P., Verbist K.C., Brewer T.L., Llambi F., Gong Y.-N., et al. RIPK1 blocks early postnatal lethality mediated by caspase-8 and RIPK3. Cell. 2014;157:1189-1202.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2014.04.018
110.
Wegner K.W., Saleh D., Degterev A. Complex pathologic roles of RIPK1 and RIPK3: Moving beyond necroptosis. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2017;38:202-225.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tips.2016.12.005
111.
Green D.R. The coming decade of cell death research: Five riddles. Cell. 2019;177:1094-1107.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2019.04.024
112.
Gong Y.-N., Crawford J.C., Heckmann B.L., Green D.R. To the edge of cell death and back. FEBS J. 2019;286:430-440.
Not in our library10.1111/febs.14714
113.
Tummers B., Green D.R. Caspase-8: Regulating life and death. Immunol. Rev. 2017;277:76-89.
Not in our library10.1111/imr.12541
114.
Murphy J.M., Czabotar P.E., Hildebrand J.M., Lucet I.S., Zhang J.-G., Alvarez-Diaz S., Lewis R., Lalaoui N., Metcalf D., Webb A.I., et al. The pseudokinase MLKL mediates necroptosis via a molecular switch mechanism. Immunity. 2013;39:443-453.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2013.06.018
115.
Cho Y.S., Challa S., Moquin D., Genga R., Ray T.D., Guildford M., Chan F.K.-M. Phosphorylation-driven assembly of the RIP1-RIP3 complex regulates programmed necrosis and virus-induced inflammation. Cell. 2009;137:1112-1123.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2009.05.037
116.
Sun L., Wang H., Wang Z., He S., Chen S., Liao D., Wang L., Yan J., Liu W., Lei X., et al. Mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein mediates necrosis signaling downstream of RIP3 kinase. Cell. 2012;148:213-227.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2011.11.031
117.
Dondelinger Y., Declercq W., Montessuit S., Roelandt R., Goncalves A., Bruggeman I., Hulpiau P., Weber K., Sehon C.A., Marquis R.W., et al. MLKL compromises plasma membrane integrity by binding to phosphatidylinositol phosphates. Cell Rep. 2014;7:971-981.
Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2014.04.026
118.
Cai Z., Jitkaew S., Zhao J., Chiang H.-C., Choksi S., Liu J., Ward Y., Wu L.-G., Liu Z.-G. Plasma membrane translocation of trimerized MLKL protein is required for TNF-induced necroptosis. Nat. Cell Biol. 2014;16:55-65.
Not in our library10.1038/ncb2883
119.
Tanzer M.C., Matti I., Hildebrand J.M., Young S.N., Wardak A., Tripaydonis A., Petrie E.J., Mildenhall A.L., Vaux D.L., Vince J.E., et al. Evolutionary divergence of the necroptosis effector MLKL. Cell Death Differ. 2016;23:1185-1197.
Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2015.169
120.
Petrie E.J., Birkinshaw R.W., Koide A., Denbaum E., Hildebrand J.M., Garnish S.E., Davies K.A., Sandow J.J., Samson A.L., Gavin X., et al. Identification of MLKL membrane translocation as a checkpoint in necroptotic cell death using Monobodies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2020;117:8468-8475.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1919960117
121.
Schenk B., Fulda S. Reactive oxygen species regulate Smac mimetic/TNFα-induced necroptotic signaling and cell death. Oncogene. 2015;34:5796-5806.
Not in our library10.1038/onc.2015.35
122.
Xia B., Fang S., Chen X., Hu H., Chen P., Wang H., Gao Z. MLKL forms cation channels. Cell Res. 2016;26:517-528.
Not in our library10.1038/cr.2016.26
123.
Gupta K., Madan E., Sayyid M., Arias-Pulido H., Moreno E., Kuppusamy P., Gogna R. Oxygen regulates molecular mechanisms of cancer progression and metastasis. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2014;33:183-215.
Not in our library10.1007/s10555-013-9464-2
124.
Gong Y.-N., Guy C., Olauson H., Becker J.U., Yang M., Fitzgerald P., Linkermann A., Green D.R. ESCRT-III Acts Downstream of MLKL to Regulate Necroptotic Cell Death and Its Consequences. Cell. 2017;169:286-300.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.020
125.
Svensson A., Sandberg T., Siesjö P., Eriksson H. Sequestering of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs): A possible mechanism affecting the immune-stimulating properties of aluminium adjuvants. Immunol. Res. 2017;65:1164-1175.
Not in our library10.1007/s12026-017-8972-5
126.
DAMPs from Cell Death to New Life · 2015
No notice
127.
Krysko O., Løve Aaes T., Bachert C., Vandenabeele P., Krysko D.V. Many faces of DAMPs in cancer therapy. Cell Death Dis. 2013;4:e631.
Not in our library10.1038/cddis.2013.156
128.
Molecular Insights into the Mechanism of Necroptosis: The Necrosome as a Potential Therapeutic Target · 2019
No notice
129.
Saelens X., Festjens N., Parthoens E., Vanoverberghe I., Kalai M., van Kuppeveld F., Vandenabeele P. Protein synthesis persists during necrotic cell death. J. Cell Biol. 2005;168:545-551.
Not in our library10.1083/jcb.200407162
130.
Vanden Berghe T., Kalai M., Denecker G., Meeus A., Saelens X., Vandenabeele P. Necrosis is associated with IL-6 production but apoptosis is not. Cell Signal. 2006;18:328-335.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cellsig.2005.05.003
131.
Orozco S.L., Daniels B.P., Yatim N., Messmer M.N., Quarato G., Chen-Harris H., Cullen S.P., Snyder A.G., Ralli-Jain P., Frase S., et al. RIPK3 Activation Leads to Cytokine Synthesis that Continues after Loss of Cell Membrane Integrity. Cell Rep. 2019;28:2275-2287.
Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2019.07.077
132.
Sprooten J., Garg A.D. Type I interferons and endoplasmic reticulum stress in health and disease. Int. Rev. Cell Mol. Biol. 2020;350:63-118.
Not in our library10.1016/bs.ircmb.2019.10.004
133.
Medina C.B., Ravichandran K.S. Do not let death do us part: “find-me” signals in communication between dying cells and the phagocytes. Cell Death Differ. 2016;23:979-989.
Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2016.13
134.
Ravichandran K.S. Find-me and eat-me signals in apoptotic cell clearance: Progress and conundrums. J. Exp. Med. 2010;207:1807-1817.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.20101157
135.
Krysko D.V., D’Herde K., Vandenabeele P. Clearance of apoptotic and necrotic cells and its immunological consequences. Apoptosis. 2006;11:1709-1726.
Not in our library10.1007/s10495-006-9527-8
136.
Fond A.M., Ravichandran K.S. Clearance of dying cells by phagocytes: Mechanisms and implications for disease pathogenesis. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2016;930:25-49.
Not in our library10.1007/978-3-319-39406-0_2
137.
Lu J., Shi W., Liang B., Chen C., Wu R., Lin H., Zhang Y., Han J. Efficient engulfment of necroptotic and pyroptotic cells by nonprofessional and professional phagocytes. Cell Discov. 2019;5:39.
Not in our library10.1038/s41421-019-0108-8
138.
Fang S., Agostinis P., Salven P., Garg A.D. Decoding cancer cell death-driven immune cell recruitment: An in vivo method for site-of-vaccination analyses. Meth. Enzymol. 2020;636:185-207.
Not in our library10.1016/bs.mie.2019.04.013
139.
McCracken M.N., Cha A.C., Weissman I.L. Molecular Pathways: Activating T Cells after Cancer Cell Phagocytosis from Blockade of CD47 “Don’t Eat Me” Signals. Clin. Cancer Res. 2015;21:3597-3601.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-2520
140.
Arandjelovic S., Ravichandran K.S. Phagocytosis of apoptotic cells in homeostasis. Nat. Immunol. 2015;16:907-917.
Not in our library10.1038/ni.3253
141.
Tyurin V.A., Balasubramanian K., Winnica D., Tyurina Y.Y., Vikulina A.S., He R.R., Kapralov A.A., Macphee C.H., Kagan V.E. Oxidatively modified phosphatidylserines on the surface of apoptotic cells are essential phagocytic “eat-me” signals: Cleavage and inhibition of phagocytosis by Lp-PLA2. Cell Death Differ. 2014;21:825-835.
Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2014.1
142.
Segawa K., Nagata S. An apoptotic “eat me” signal: Phosphatidylserine exposure. Trends Cell Biol. 2015;25:639-650.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tcb.2015.08.003
143.
Perry J.S.A., Morioka S., Medina C.B., Iker Etchegaray J., Barron B., Raymond M.H., Lucas C.D., Onengut-Gumuscu S., Delpire E., Ravichandran K.S. Interpreting an apoptotic corpse as anti-inflammatory involves a chloride sensing pathway. Nat. Cell Biol. 2019;21:1532-1543.
Not in our library10.1038/s41556-019-0431-1
144.
Peter C., Wesselborg S., Herrmann M., Lauber K. Dangerous attraction: Phagocyte recruitment and danger signals of apoptotic and necrotic cells. Apoptosis. 2010;15:1007-1028.
Not in our library10.1007/s10495-010-0472-1
145.
Necroptosis promotes cell-autonomous activation of proinflammatory cytokine gene expression · 2018
No notice
146.
Kearney C.J., Martin S.J. An inflammatory perspective on necroptosis. Mol. Cell. 2017;65:965-973.
Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2017.02.024
147.
Wang Q., Ju X., Zhou Y., Chen K. Necroptotic cells release find-me signal and are engulfed without proinflammatory cytokine production. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 2015;51:1033-1039.
Not in our library10.1007/s11626-015-9926-7
148.
Devitt A., Marshall L.J. The innate immune system and the clearance of apoptotic cells. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2011;90:447-457.
Not in our library10.1189/jlb.0211095
149.
Lolmede K., Campana L., Vezzoli M., Bosurgi L., Tonlorenzi R., Clementi E., Bianchi M.E., Cossu G., Manfredi A.A., Brunelli S., et al. Inflammatory and alternatively activated human macrophages attract vessel-associated stem cells, relying on separate HMGB1- and MMP-9-dependent pathways. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2009;85:779-787.
Not in our library10.1189/jlb.0908579
150.
Kimura T., Kobayashi S., Hanihara-Tatsuzawa F., Sayama A., MaruYama T., Muta T. Responses of macrophages to the danger signals released from necrotic cells. Int. Immunol. 2014;26:697-704.
Not in our library10.1093/intimm/dxu080
151.
Dankers W., Hasnat M.A., Swann V., Alharbi A., Lee J.P.W., Cristofaro M.A., Gantier M.P., Jones S.A., Morand E.F., Flynn J.K., et al. Necrotic cell death increases the release of Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) by monocytes/macrophages. Immunol. Cell Biol. 2020.
Not in our library10.1111/imcb.12376
152.
Krysko D.V., Denecker G., Festjens N., Gabriels S., Parthoens E., D’Herde K., Vandenabeele P. Macrophages use different internalization mechanisms to clear apoptotic and necrotic cells. Cell Death Differ. 2006;13:2011-2022.
Not in our library10.1038/sj.cdd.4401900
153.
Krieser R.J., White K. Engulfment mechanism of apoptotic cells. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 2002;14:734-738.
Not in our library10.1016/s0955-0674(02)00390-3
154.
Cao L., Chang H., Shi X., Peng C., He Y. Keratin mediates the recognition of apoptotic and necrotic cells through dendritic cell receptor DEC205/CD205. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2016;113:13438-13443.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1609331113
155.
Ahrens S., Zelenay S., Sancho D., Hanč P., Kjær S., Feest C., Fletcher G., Durkin C., Postigo A., Skehel M., et al. F-actin is an evolutionarily conserved damage-associated molecular pattern recognized by DNGR-1, a receptor for dead cells. Immunity. 2012;36:635-645.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2012.03.008
156.
Phosphatidylserine externalization, “necroptotic bodies” release, and phagocytosis during necroptosis · 2017
No notice
157.
Three cell deaths and a funeral: macrophage clearance of cells undergoing distinct modes of cell death · 2019
No notice
158.
Brouckaert G., Kalai M., Krysko D.V., Saelens X., Vercammen D., Ndlovu M.N., Haegeman G., D’Herde K., Vandenabeele P. Phagocytosis of necrotic cells by macrophages is phosphatidylserine dependent and does not induce inflammatory cytokine production. Mol. Biol. Cell. 2004;15:1089-1100.
Not in our library10.1091/mbc.e03-09-0668
159.
Gerlach B.D., Marinello M., Heinz J., Rymut N., Sansbury B.E., Riley C.O., Sadhu S., Hosseini Z., Kojima Y., Tang D.D., et al. Resolvin D1 promotes the targeting and clearance of necroptotic cells. Cell Death Differ. 2020;27:525-539.
Not in our library10.1038/s41418-019-0370-1
160.
Rock K.L., Kono H. The inflammatory response to cell death. Annu. Rev. Pathol. 2008;3:99-126.
Not in our library10.1146/annurev.pathmechdis.3.121806.151456
161.
Oppenheim J.J., Yang D. Alarmins: Chemotactic activators of immune responses. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2005;17:359-365.
Not in our library10.1016/j.coi.2005.06.002
162.
Chiba S., Baghdadi M., Akiba H., Yoshiyama H., Kinoshita I., Dosaka-Akita H., Fujioka Y., Ohba Y., Gorman J.V., Colgan J.D., et al. Tumor-infiltrating DCs suppress nucleic acid-mediated innate immune responses through interactions between the receptor TIM-3 and the alarmin HMGB1. Nat. Immunol. 2012;13:832-842.
Not in our library10.1038/ni.2376
163.
Simpson J., Loh Z., Ullah M.A., Lynch J.P., Werder R.B., Collinson N., Zhang V., Dondelinger Y., Bertrand M.J.M., Everard M.L., et al. RSV infection promotes necroptosis and HMGB1 release by airway epithelial cells. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020;201:1358-1371.
Not in our library10.1164/rccm.201906-1149oc
164.
Xu Z., Jin Y., Yan H., Gao Z., Xu B., Yang B., He Q., Shi Q., Luo P. High-mobility group box 1 protein-mediated necroptosis contributes to dasatinib-induced cardiotoxicity. Toxicol. Lett. 2018;296:39-47.
Not in our library10.1016/j.toxlet.2018.08.003
165.
Gabrilovich D.I., Ostrand-Rosenberg S., Bronte V. Coordinated regulation of myeloid cells by tumours. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2012;12:253-268.
Not in our library10.1038/nri3175
166.
Yatim N., Jusforgues-Saklani H., Orozco S., Schulz O., Barreira da Silva R., Reis e Sousa C., Green D.R., Oberst A., Albert M.L. RIPK1 and NF-κB signaling in dying cells determines cross-priming of CD8+ T cells. Science. 2015;350:328-334.
Not in our library10.1126/science.aad0395
167.
Chen G.Y., Nuñez G. Sterile inflammation: Sensing and reacting to damage. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2010;10:826-837.
Not in our library10.1038/nri2873
168.
Man S.M., Kanneganti T.-D. Regulation of inflammasome activation. Immunol. Rev. 2015;265:6-21.
Not in our library10.1111/imr.12296
169.
Knuth A.-K., Rösler S., Schenk B., Kowald L., van Wijk S.J.L., Fulda S. Interferons Transcriptionally Up-Regulate MLKL Expression in Cancer Cells. Neoplasia. 2019;21:74-81.
Not in our library10.1016/j.neo.2018.11.002
170.
Land W.G., Agostinis P., Gasser S., Garg A.D., Linkermann A. DAMP-Induced Allograft and Tumor Rejection: The Circle Is Closing. Am. J. Transplant. 2016;16:3322-3337.
Not in our library10.1111/ajt.14012
171.
Duprez L., Takahashi N., Van Hauwermeiren F., Vandendriessche B., Goossens V., Vanden Berghe T., Declercq W., Libert C., Cauwels A., Vandenabeele P. RIP kinase-dependent necrosis drives lethal systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Immunity. 2011;35:908-918.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2011.09.020
172.
Wauters E., Thevissen K., Wouters C., Bosisio F.M., De Smet F., Gunst J., Humblet-Baron S., Lambrechts D., Liston A., Matthys P., et al. Establishing a Unified COVID-19 “Immunome”: Integrating Coronavirus Pathogenesis and Host Immunopathology. Front. Immunol. 2020;11:1642.
Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2020.01642
173.
Vandenberk L., Garg A.D., Verschuere T., Koks C., Belmans J., Beullens M., Agostinis P., De Vleeschouwer S., Van Gool S.W. Irradiation of necrotic cancer cells, employed for pulsing dendritic cells (DCs), potentiates DC vaccine-induced antitumor immunity against high-grade glioma. Oncoimmunology. 2016;5:e1083669.
Not in our library10.1080/2162402x.2015.1083669
174.
Cohen I., Rider P., Carmi Y., Braiman A., Dotan S., White M.R., Voronov E., Martin M.U., Dinarello C.A., Apte R.N. Differential release of chromatin-bound IL-1alpha discriminates between necrotic and apoptotic cell death by the ability to induce sterile inflammation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2010;107:2574-2579.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0915018107
175.
Discriminating mild from critical COVID-19 by innate and adaptive immune single-cell profiling of bronchoalveolar lavages · 2021
No notice
176.
Richards C.H., Mohammed Z., Qayyum T., Horgan P.G., McMillan D.C. The prognostic value of histological tumor necrosis in solid organ malignant disease: A systematic review. Future Oncol. 2011;7:1223-1235.
Not in our library10.2217/fon.11.99
177.
Foria V., Surendra T., Poller D.N. Prognostic relevance of extensive necrosis in renal cell carcinoma. J. Clin. Pathol. 2005;58:39-43.
Not in our library10.1136/jcp.2004.018846
178.
Hiraoka N., Ino Y., Sekine S., Tsuda H., Shimada K., Kosuge T., Zavada J., Yoshida M., Yamada K., Koyama T., et al. Tumour necrosis is a postoperative prognostic marker for pancreatic cancer patients with a high interobserver reproducibility in histological evaluation. Br. J. Cancer. 2010;103:1057-1065.
Not in our library10.1038/sj.bjc.6605854
179.
Chan F.K.M., Moriwaki K., De Rosa M.J. Detection of necrosis by release of lactate dehydrogenase activity. Methods Mol. Biol. 2013;979:65-70.
Not in our library10.1007/978-1-62703-290-2_7
180.
Armstrong A.J., George D.J., Halabi S. Serum lactate dehydrogenase predicts for overall survival benefit in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with inhibition of mammalian target of rapamycin. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012;30:3402-3407.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2011.40.9631
181.
Sancho D., Joffre O.P., Keller A.M., Rogers N.C., Martínez D., Hernanz-Falcón P., Rosewell I., Reis e Sousa C. Identification of a dendritic cell receptor that couples sensing of necrosis to immunity. Nature. 2009;458:899-903.
Not in our library10.1038/nature07750
182.
Akimoto M., Maruyama R., Kawabata Y., Tajima Y., Takenaga K. Antidiabetic adiponectin receptor agonist AdipoRon suppresses tumour growth of pancreatic cancer by inducing RIPK1/ERK-dependent necroptosis. Cell Death Dis. 2018;9:804.
Not in our library10.1038/s41419-018-0851-z
183.
Zhang S.-L., Tang H.-B., Hu J.-T., Zang Z.-L., Ding X., Li S., Yang H. PGAM5-CypD pathway is involved in bromocriptine-induced RIP3/MLKL-dependent necroptosis of prolactinoma cells. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2019;111:638-648.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biopha.2018.12.128
184.
Rohde K., Kleinesudeik L., Roesler S., Löwe O., Heidler J., Schröder K., Wittig I., Dröse S., Fulda S. A Bak-dependent mitochondrial amplification step contributes to Smac mimetic/glucocorticoid-induced necroptosis. Cell Death Differ. 2017;24:83-97.
Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2016.102
185.
Bhatti I.A., Abhari B.A., Fulda S. Identification of a synergistic combination of Smac mimetic and Bortezomib to trigger cell death in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma cells. Cancer Lett. 2017;405:63-72.
Not in our library10.1016/j.canlet.2017.07.008
186.
Zhang X., Kitatani K., Toyoshima M., Ishibashi M., Usui T., Minato J., Egiz M., Shigeta S., Fox T., Deering T., et al. Ceramide Nanoliposomes as a MLKL-Dependent, Necroptosis-Inducing, Chemotherapeutic Reagent in Ovarian Cancer. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2018;17:50-59.
Not in our library10.1158/1535-7163.mct-17-0173
187.
Xu Y., Lin Z., Zhao N., Zhou L., Liu F., Cichacz Z., Zhang L., Zhan Q., Zhao X. Receptor interactive protein kinase 3 promotes Cisplatin-triggered necrosis in apoptosis-resistant esophageal squamous cell carcinoma cells. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e100127.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0100127
188.
Jing L., Song F., Liu Z., Li J., Wu B., Fu Z., Jiang J., Chen Z. MLKL-PITPα signaling-mediated necroptosis contributes to cisplatin-triggered cell death in lung cancer A549 cells. Cancer Lett. 2018;414:136-146.
Not in our library10.1016/j.canlet.2017.10.047
189.
Chengzhu W.U., Gao M., Shen L., Bohan L.I., Bai X., Gui J., Hongmei L.I., Huo Q., Tao M.A. Miconazole triggers various forms of cell death in human breast cancer MDA-MB-231 cells. Pharmazie. 2019;74:290-294.
Not in our library10.1691/ph.2019.8812
190.
Yu X., Deng Q., Li W., Xiao L., Luo X., Liu X., Yang L., Peng S., Ding Z., Feng T., et al. Neoalbaconol induces cell death through necroptosis by regulating RIPK-dependent autocrine TNFα and ROS production. Oncotarget. 2015;6:1995-2008.
Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.3038
191.
Weigert M., Binks A., Dowson S., Leung E.Y.L., Athineos D., Yu X., Mullin M., Walton J.B., Orange C., Ennis D., et al. RIPK3 promotes adenovirus type 5 activity. Cell Death Dis. 2017;8:3206.
Not in our library10.1038/s41419-017-0110-8
192.
Yoo J.Y., Jaime-Ramirez A.C., Bolyard C., Dai H., Nallanagulagari T., Wojton J., Hurwitz B.S., Relation T., Lee T.J., Lotze M.T., et al. Bortezomib Treatment Sensitizes Oncolytic HSV-1-Treated Tumors to NK Cell Immunotherapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016;22:5265-5276.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-16-1003
193.
The anti-tumor effect of shikonin on osteosarcoma by inducing RIP1 and RIP3 dependent necroptosis · 2013
No notice
194.
Shahsavari Z., Karami-Tehrani F., Salami S., Ghasemzadeh M. RIP1K and RIP3K provoked by shikonin induce cell cycle arrest in the triple negative breast cancer cell line, MDA-MB-468: Necroptosis as a desperate programmed suicide pathway. Tumour Biol. 2016;37:4479-4491.
Not in our library10.1007/s13277-015-4258-5
195.
Zhou Z., Lu B., Wang C., Wang Z., Luo T., Piao M., Meng F., Chi G., Luo Y., Ge P. RIP1 and RIP3 contribute to shikonin-induced DNA double-strand breaks in glioma cells via increase of intracellular reactive oxygen species. Cancer Lett. 2017;390:77-90.
Not in our library10.1016/j.canlet.2017.01.004
196.
Zielinska E., Zauszkiewicz-Pawlak A., Wojcik M., Inkielewicz-Stepniak I. Silver nanoparticles of different sizes induce a mixed type of programmed cell death in human pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Oncotarget. 2018;9:4675-4697.
Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.22563
197.
Hillert L.K., Bettermann-Bethge K., Nimmagadda S.C., Fischer T., Naumann M., Lavrik I.N. Targeting RIPK1 in AML cells carrying FLT3-ITD. Int. J. Cancer. 2019;145:1558-1569.
Not in our library10.1002/ijc.32246
198.
Jin G., Liu Y., Xu P., Jin G. Induction of Necroptosis in Human Breast Cancer Drug-Resistant Cells by SMAC Analog LCL161 After Caspase Inhibition Requires RIP3. Pharmazie. 2019;74:363-368.
Not in our library10.1691/ph.2019.9307
199.
He S., Huang S., Shen Z. Biomarkers for the detection of necroptosis. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 2016;73:2177-2181.
Not in our library10.1007/s00018-016-2192-3
200.
Caccamo A., Branca C., Piras I.S., Ferreira E., Huentelman M.J., Liang W.S., Readhead B., Dudley J.T., Spangenberg E.E., Green K.N., et al. Necroptosis activation in Alzheimer’s disease. Nat. Neurosci. 2017;20:1236-1246.
Not in our library10.1038/nn.4608
201.
Koo G.-B., Morgan M.J., Lee D.-G., Kim W.-J., Yoon J.-H., Koo J.S., Kim S.I., Kim S.J., Son M.K., Hong S.S., et al. Methylation-dependent loss of RIP3 expression in cancer represses programmed necrosis in response to chemotherapeutics. Cell Res. 2015;25:707-725.
Not in our library10.1038/cr.2015.56
202.
Feng X., Song Q., Yu A., Tang H., Peng Z., Wang X. Receptor-interacting protein kinase 3 is a predictor of survival and plays a tumor suppressive role in colorectal cancer. Neoplasma. 2015;62:592-601.
Not in our library10.4149/neo_2015_071
203.
RIP3 is downregulated in human myeloid leukemia cells and modulates apoptosis and caspase-mediated p65/RelA cleavage · 2014
No notice
204.
Najafov A., Zervantonakis I.K., Mookhtiar A.K., Greninger P., March R.J., Egan R.K., Luu H.S., Stover D.G., Matulonis U.A., Benes C.H., et al. BRAF and AXL oncogenes drive RIPK3 expression loss in cancer. PLoS Biol. 2018;16:e2005756.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pbio.2005756
205.
Shi F., Zhou M., Shang L., Du Q., Li Y., Xie L., Liu X., Tang M., Luo X., Fan J., et al. EBV(LMP1)-induced metabolic reprogramming inhibits necroptosis through the hypermethylation of the RIP3 promoter. Theranostics. 2019;9:2424-2438.
Not in our library10.7150/thno.30941
206.
Liu X., Li Y., Peng S., Yu X., Li W., Shi F., Luo X., Tang M., Tan Z., Bode A.M., et al. Epstein-Barr virus encoded latent membrane protein 1 suppresses necroptosis through targeting RIPK1/3 ubiquitination. Cell Death Dis. 2018;9:53.
Not in our library10.1038/s41419-017-0081-9
207.
Yang C., Li J., Yu L., Zhang Z., Xu F., Jiang L., Zhou X., He S. Regulation of RIP3 by the transcription factor Sp1 and the epigenetic regulator UHRF1 modulates cancer cell necroptosis. Cell Death Dis. 2017;8:e3084.
Not in our library10.1038/cddis.2017.483
208.
Conev N.V., Dimitrova E.G., Bogdanova M.K., Kashlov Y.K., Chaushev B.G., Radanova M.A., Petrov D.P., Georgiev K.D., Bachvarov C.H., Todorov G.N., et al. RIPK3 expression as a potential predictive and prognostic marker in metastatic colon cancer. Clin. Investig. Med. 2019;42:E31-E38.
Not in our library10.25011/cim.v42i1.32390
209.
McCormick K.D., Ghosh A., Trivedi S., Wang L., Coyne C.B., Ferris R.L., Sarkar S.N. Innate immune signaling through differential RIPK1 expression promote tumor progression in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Carcinogenesis. 2016;37:522-529.
Not in our library10.1093/carcin/bgw032
210.
Schneider A.T., Gautheron J., Feoktistova M., Roderburg C., Loosen S.H., Roy S., Benz F., Schemmer P., Büchler M.W., Nachbur U., et al. RIPK1 Suppresses a TRAF2-Dependent Pathway to Liver Cancer. Cancer Cell. 2017;31:94-109.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2016.11.009
211.
Liu X.Y., Lai F., Yan X.G., Jiang C.C., Guo S.T., Wang C.Y., Croft A., Tseng H.-Y., Wilmott J.S., Scolyer R.A., et al. RIP1 kinase is an oncogenic driver in melanoma. Cancer Res. 2015;75:1736-1748.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-14-2199
212.
Krysko O., Aaes T.L., Kagan V.E., D’Herde K., Bachert C., Leybaert L., Vandenabeele P., Krysko D.V. Necroptotic cell death in anti-cancer therapy. Immunol. Rev. 2017;280:207-219.
Not in our library10.1111/imr.12583
213.
Fulda S. The mechanism of necroptosis in normal and cancer cells. Cancer Biol. Ther. 2013;14:999-1004.
Not in our library10.4161/cbt.26428
214.
Galluzzi L., Kepp O., Chan F.K.-M., Kroemer G. Necroptosis: Mechanisms and relevance to disease. Annu. Rev. Pathol. 2017;12:103-130.
Not in our library10.1146/annurev-pathol-052016-100247
215.
Najafov A., Chen H., Yuan J. Necroptosis and Cancer. Trends Cancer. 2017;3:294-301.
Not in our library10.1016/j.trecan.2017.03.002
216.
Lalaoui N., Brumatti G. Relevance of necroptosis in cancer. Immunol. Cell Biol. 2017;95:137-145.
Not in our library10.1038/icb.2016.120
217.
Schumacher D., Strilic B., Sivaraj K.K., Wettschureck N., Offermanns S. Platelet-derived nucleotides promote tumor-cell transendothelial migration and metastasis via P2Y2 receptor. Cancer Cell. 2013;24:130-137.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2013.05.008
218.
Hänggi K., Vasilikos L., Valls A.F., Yerbes R., Knop J., Spilgies L.M., Rieck K., Misra T., Bertin J., Gough P.J., et al. RIPK1/RIPK3 promotes vascular permeability to allow tumor cell extravasation independent of its necroptotic function. Cell Death Dis. 2017;8:e2588.
Not in our library10.1038/cddis.2017.20
219.
Ruan J., Mei L., Zhu Q., Shi G., Wang H. Mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein is a prognostic biomarker for cervical squamous cell cancer. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 2015;8:15035-15038.
Not in our library
220.
Strilic B., Yang L., Albarrán-Juárez J., Wachsmuth L., Han K., Müller U.C., Pasparakis M., Offermanns S. Tumour-cell-induced endothelial cell necroptosis via death receptor 6 promotes metastasis. Nature. 2016;536:215-218.
Not in our library10.1038/nature19076
221.
Ando Y., Ohuchida K., Otsubo Y., Kibe S., Takesue S., Abe T., Iwamoto C., Shindo K., Moriyama T., Nakata K., et al. Necroptosis in pancreatic cancer promotes cancer cell migration and invasion by release of CXCL5. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0228015.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0228015
222.
Conos S.A., Chen K.W., De Nardo D., Hara H., Whitehead L., Núñez G., Masters S.L., Murphy J.M., Schroder K., Vaux D.L., et al. Active MLKL triggers the NLRP3 inflammasome in a cell-intrinsic manner. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2017;114:E961-E969.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1613305114
223.
Huang C.Y., Kuo W.T., Huang Y.C., Lee T.C., Yu L.C.H. Resistance to hypoxia-induced necroptosis is conferred by glycolytic pyruvate scavenging of mitochondrial superoxide in colorectal cancer cells. Cell Death Dis. 2013;4:e622.
Not in our library10.1038/cddis.2013.149
224.
Sheridan C. Death by inflammation: Drug makers chase the master controller. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019;37:111-113.
Not in our library10.1038/s41587-019-0023-4
225.
Wang H.-H., Wu Z.-Q., Qian D., Zaorsky N.G., Qiu M.-H., Cheng J.-J., Jiang C., Wang J., Zeng X.-L., Liu C.-L., et al. Ablative Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy Enhances Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Cell Killing via Preferential Stimulation of Necroptosis In Vitro and In Vivo. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2018;101:49-62.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.01.036
226.
Bist P., Leow S.C., Phua Q.H., Shu S., Zhuang Q., Loh W.T., Nguyen T.H., Zhou J.B., Hooi S.C., Lim L.H.K. Annexin-1 interacts with NEMO and RIP1 to constitutively activate IKK complex and NF-κB: Implication in breast cancer metastasis. Oncogene. 2011;30:3174-3185.
Not in our library10.1038/onc.2011.28
227.
Park S., Hatanpaa K.J., Xie Y., Mickey B.E., Madden C.J., Raisanen J.M., Ramnarain D.B., Xiao G., Saha D., Boothman D.A., et al. The receptor interacting protein 1 inhibits p53 induction through NF-kappaB activation and confers a worse prognosis in glioblastoma. Cancer Res. 2009;69:2809-2816.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-08-4079
228.
Li X., Guo J., Ding A.-P., Qi W.-W., Zhang P.-H., Lv J., Qiu W.-S., Sun Z.-Q. Association of Mixed Lineage Kinase Domain-Like Protein Expression with Prognosis in Patients with Colon Cancer. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 2017;16:428-434.
Not in our library10.1177/1533034616655909
229.
Li L., Yu S., Zang C. Low Necroptosis Process Predicts Poor Treatment Outcome of Human Papillomavirus Positive Cervical Cancers by Decreasing Tumor-Associated Macrophages M1 Polarization. Gynecol. Obstet. Investig. 2018;83:259-267.
Not in our library10.1159/000487434
230.
He L., Peng K., Liu Y., Xiong J., Zhu F.-F. Low expression of mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein is associated with poor prognosis in ovarian cancer patients. Onco Targets Ther. 2013;6:1539-1543.
Not in our library10.2147/ott.s52805
231.
Colbert L.E., Fisher S.B., Hardy C.W., Hall W.A., Saka B., Shelton J.W., Petrova A.V., Warren M.D., Pantazides B.G., Gandhi K., et al. Pronecrotic mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein expression is a prognostic biomarker in patients with early-stage resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer. 2013;119:3148-3155.
Not in our library10.1002/cncr.28144
232.
Jiao D., Cai Z., Choksi S., Ma D., Choe M., Kwon H.-J., Baik J.Y., Rowan B.G., Liu C., Liu Z.-G. Necroptosis of tumor cells leads to tumor necrosis and promotes tumor metastasis. Cell Res. 2018;28:868-870.
Not in our library10.1038/s41422-018-0058-y
233.
Ertao Z., Jianhui C., Kang W., Zhijun Y., Hui W., Chuangqi C., Changjiang Q., Sile C., Yulong H., Shirong C. Prognostic value of mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein expression in the survival of patients with gastric caner. Tumour Biol. 2016;37:13679-13685.
Not in our library10.1007/s13277-016-5229-1
234.
Wellenstein M.D., de Visser K.E. Cancer-Cell-Intrinsic Mechanisms Shaping the Tumor Immune Landscape. Immunity. 2018;48:399-416.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2018.03.004
235.
Bindea G., Mlecnik B., Tosolini M., Kirilovsky A., Waldner M., Obenauf A.C., Angell H., Fredriksen T., Lafontaine L., Berger A., et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics of intratumoral immune cells reveal the immune landscape in human cancer. Immunity. 2013;39:782-795.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2013.10.003
236.
Thorsson V., Gibbs D.L., Brown S.D., Wolf D., Bortone D.S., Ou Yang T.-H., Porta-Pardo E., Gao G.F., Plaisier C.L., Eddy J.A., et al. The immune landscape of cancer. Immunity. 2018;48:812-830.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2018.03.023
237.
Nagarsheth N., Wicha M.S., Zou W. Chemokines in the cancer microenvironment and their relevance in cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2017;17:559-572.
Not in our library10.1038/nri.2017.49
238.
Garg A.D., Romano E., Rufo N., Agostinis P. Immunogenic versus tolerogenic phagocytosis during anticancer therapy: Mechanisms and clinical translation. Cell Death Differ. 2016;23:938-951.
Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2016.5
239.
Yang H., Ma Y., Chen G., Zhou H., Yamazaki T., Klein C., Pietrocola F., Vacchelli E., Souquere S., Sauvat A., et al. Contribution of RIP3 and MLKL to immunogenic cell death signaling in cancer chemotherapy. Oncoimmunology. 2016;5:e1149673.
Not in our library10.1080/2162402x.2016.1149673
240.
Smola S. RIPK3-a predictive marker for personalized immunotherapy? Oncoimmunology. 2016;5:e1075695.
Not in our library10.1080/2162402x.2015.1075695
241.
Schmidt S.V., Seibert S., Walch-Rückheim B., Vicinus B., Kamionka E.-M., Pahne-Zeppenfeld J., Solomayer E.-F., Kim Y.-J., Bohle R.M., Smola S. RIPK3 expression in cervical cancer cells is required for PolyIC-induced necroptosis, IL-1α release, and efficient paracrine dendritic cell activation. Oncotarget. 2015;6:8635-8647.
Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.3249
242.
Koks C.A., Garg A.D., Ehrhardt M., Riva M., Vandenberk L., Boon L., De Vleeschouwer S., Agostinis P., Graf N., Van Gool S.W. Newcastle disease virotherapy induces long-term survival and tumor-specific immune memory in orthotopic glioma through the induction of immunogenic cell death. Int. J. Cancer. 2015;136:E313-E325.
Not in our library10.1002/ijc.29202
243.
Dudek-Perić A.M., Ferreira G.B., Muchowicz A., Wouters J., Prada N., Martin S., Kiviluoto S., Winiarska M., Boon L., Mathieu C., et al. Antitumor immunity triggered by melphalan is potentiated by melanoma cell surface-associated calreticulin. Cancer Res. 2015;75:1603-1614.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-14-2089
244.
Garg A.D., Vandenberk L., Koks C., Verschuere T., Boon L., Van Gool S.W., Agostinis P. Dendritic cell vaccines based on immunogenic cell death elicit danger signals and T cell-driven rejection of high-grade glioma. Sci. Transl. Med. 2016;8:328ra27.
Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.aae0105
245.
Aaes T.L., Verschuere H., Kaczmarek A., Heyndrickx L., Wiernicki B., Delrue I., De Craene B., Taminau J., Delvaeye T., Bertrand M.J.M., et al. Immunodominant AH1 Antigen-Deficient Necroptotic, but Not Apoptotic, Murine Cancer Cells Induce Antitumor Protection. J. Immunol. 2020;204:775-787.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.1900072
246.
Krysko D.V., Brouckaert G., Kalai M., Vandenabeele P., D’Herde K. Mechanisms of internalization of apoptotic and necrotic L929 cells by a macrophage cell line studied by electron microscopy. J. Morphol. 2003;258:336-345.
Not in our library10.1002/jmor.10161
247.
Gamrekelashvili J., Ormandy L.A., Heimesaat M.M., Kirschning C.J., Manns M.P., Korangy F., Greten T.F. Primary sterile necrotic cells fail to cross-prime CD8(+) T cells. Oncoimmunology. 2012;1:1017-1026.
Not in our library10.4161/onci.21098
248.
Kearney C.J., Cullen S.P., Tynan G.A., Henry C.M., Clancy D., Lavelle E.C., Martin S.J. Necroptosis suppresses inflammation via termination of TNF- or LPS-induced cytokine and chemokine production. Cell Death Differ. 2015;22:1313-1327.
Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2014.222
249.
Liu Z.-Y., Wu B., Guo Y.-S., Zhou Y.-H., Fu Z.-G., Xu B.-Q., Li J.-H., Jing L., Jiang J.-L., Tang J., et al. Necrostatin-1 reduces intestinal inflammation and colitis-associated tumorigenesis in mice. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2015;5:3174-3185.
Not in our library
250.
Krysko O., De Ridder L., Cornelissen M. Phosphatidylserine exposure during early primary necrosis (oncosis) in JB6 cells as evidenced by immunogold labeling technique. Apoptosis. 2004;9:495-500.
Not in our library10.1023/b:appt.0000031452.75162.75
251.
Yang L., Joseph S., Sun T., Hoffmann J., Thevissen S., Offermanns S., Strilic B. TAK1 regulates endothelial cell necroptosis and tumor metastasis. Cell Death Differ. 2019;26:1987-1997.
Not in our library10.1038/s41418-018-0271-8
252.
Seifert L., Werba G., Tiwari S., Giao Ly N.N., Alothman S., Alqunaibit D., Avanzi A., Barilla R., Daley D., Greco S.H., et al. The necrosome promotes pancreatic oncogenesis via CXCL1 and Mincle-induced immune suppression. Nature. 2016;532:245-249.
Not in our library10.1038/nature17403
253.
Jafari S., Molavi O., Kahroba H., Hejazi M.S., Maleki-Dizaji N., Barghi S., Kiaie S.H., Jadidi-Niaragh F. Clinical application of immune checkpoints in targeted immunotherapy of prostate cancer. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2020.
Not in our library10.1007/s00018-020-03459-1
254.
Feng M., Jiang W., Kim B.Y.S., Zhang C.C., Fu Y.-X., Weissman I.L. Phagocytosis checkpoints as new targets for cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2019;19:568-586.
Not in our library10.1038/s41568-019-0183-z
255.
Chinai J.M., Janakiram M., Chen F., Chen W., Kaplan M., Zang X. New immunotherapies targeting the PD-1 pathway. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2015;36:587-595.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tips.2015.06.005
256.
Immune Checkpoints as Therapeutic Targets in Autoimmunity · 2018
No notice
257.
Lucca L.E., Hafler D.A. Co-inhibitory blockade while preserving tolerance: Checkpoint inhibitors for glioblastoma. Immunol. Rev. 2017;276:9-25.
Not in our library10.1111/imr.12529
258.
Barrueto L., Caminero F., Cash L., Makris C., Lamichhane P., Deshmukh R.R. Resistance to checkpoint inhibition in cancer immunotherapy. Transl. Oncol. 2020;13:100738.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tranon.2019.12.010
259.
Nakamura K., Smyth M.J. Myeloid immunosuppression and immune checkpoints in the tumor microenvironment. Cell. Mol. Immunol. 2020;17:1-12.
Not in our library10.1038/s41423-019-0306-1
260.
Snyder A.G., Hubbard N.W., Messmer M.N., Kofman S.B., Hagan C.E., Orozco S.L., Chiang K., Daniels B.P., Baker D., Oberst A. Intratumoral activation of the necroptotic pathway components RIPK1 and RIPK3 potentiates antitumor immunity. Sci. Immunol. 2019;4:eaaw2004.
Not in our library10.1126/sciimmunol.aaw2004
261.
Kang T., Huang Y., Zhu Q., Cheng H., Pei Y., Feng J., Xu M., Jiang G., Song Q., Jiang T., et al. Necroptotic cancer cells-mimicry nanovaccine boosts anti-tumor immunity with tailored immune-stimulatory modality. Biomaterials. 2018;164:80-97.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.02.033
262.
Treatment with mRNA coding for the necroptosis mediator MLKL induces antitumor immunity directed against neo-epitopes · 2018
No notice
263.
Wang R., Li H., Wu J., Cai Z.-Y., Li B., Ni H., Qiu X., Chen H., Liu W., Yang Z.-H., et al. Gut stem cell necroptosis by genome instability triggers bowel inflammation. Nature. 2020;580:386-390.
Not in our library10.1038/s41586-020-2127-x
264.
Xie Y., Zhao Y., Shi L., Li W., Chen K., Li M., Chen X., Zhang H., Li T., Matsuzawa-Ishimoto Y., et al. Gut epithelial TSC1/mTOR controls RIPK3-dependent necroptosis in intestinal inflammation and cancer. J. Clin. Investig. 2020;130:2111-2128.
Not in our library10.1172/jci133264

Cited by papers we hold 4

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.