4.7 Review

The immune microenvironment in gastric adenocarcinoma

期刊

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41575-022-00591-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. Public Service Grants [R01 DK118563, 5U19AI11649105, R01DK083402-10]
  2. NCI [P30CA023074, U54CA143924]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article reviews the role of the immune microenvironment in the progression of chronic inflammation to gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC), particularly the immune microenvironment driven by Helicobacter pylori infection. The infection-driven nature of most GACs has renewed awareness of the immune microenvironment and its effect on tumor development.
Like most solid tumours, the microenvironment of epithelial-derived gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) consists of a variety of stromal cell types, including fibroblasts, and neuronal, endothelial and immune cells. In this article, we review the role of the immune microenvironment in the progression of chronic inflammation to GAC, primarily the immune microenvironment driven by the gram-negative bacterial species Helicobacter pylori. The infection-driven nature of most GACs has renewed awareness of the immune microenvironment and its effect on tumour development and progression. About 75-90% of GACs are associated with prior H. pylori infection and 5-10% with Epstein-Barr virus infection. Although 50% of the world's population is infected with H. pylori, only 1-3% will progress to GAC, with progression the result of a combination of the H. pylori strain, host susceptibility and composition of the chronic inflammatory response. Other environmental risk factors include exposure to a high-salt diet and nitrates. Genetically, chromosome instability occurs in similar to 50% of GACs and 21% of GACs are microsatellite instability-high tumours. Here, we review the timeline and pathogenesis of the events triggered by H. pylori that can create an immunosuppressive microenvironment by modulating the host's innate and adaptive immune responses, and subsequently favour GAC development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据