4.8 Review

Exhaust the exhausters: Targeting regulatory T cells in the tumor microenvironment

期刊

FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.940052

关键词

tumor; T cell exhaustion; immunotherapy; regulatory T cell; Treg; mechanism

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health
  2. [DP2AI154451]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The concept of cancer immunotherapy has made significant progress, but challenges related to the relationship between CD4(+) T cells and CD8(+) T cells and the immunosuppressive actions of Treg cells still require attention.
The concept of cancer immunotherapy has gained immense momentum over the recent years. The advancements in checkpoint blockade have led to a notable progress in treating a plethora of cancer types. However, these approaches also appear to have stalled due to factors such as individuals' genetic make-up, resistant tumor sub-types and immune related adverse events (irAE). While the major focus of immunotherapies has largely been alleviating the cell-intrinsic defects of CD8(+) T cells in the tumor microenvironment (TME), amending the relationship between tumor specific CD4(+) T cells and CD8(+) T cells has started driving attention as well. A major roadblock to improve the cross-talk between CD4(+) T cells and CD8(+) T cells is the immune suppressive action of tumor infiltrating T regulatory (Treg) cells. Despite their indispensable in protecting tissues against autoimmune threats, Tregs have also been under scrutiny for helping tumors thrive. This review addresses how Tregs establish themselves at the TME and suppress anti-tumor immunity. Particularly, we delve into factors that promote Treg migration into tumor tissue and discuss the unique cellular and humoral composition of TME that aids survival, differentiation and function of intratumoral Tregs. Furthermore, we summarize the potential suppression mechanisms used by intratumoral Tregs and discuss ways to target those to ultimately guide new immunotherapies.

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

4.8
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