4.8 Article

Inhibition of Glutamine Utilization Synergizes with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor to Promote Antitumor Immunity

期刊

MOLECULAR CELL
卷 80, 期 4, 页码 592-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.10.015

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science and ICT [NRF-2017M3A9G7073086, NRF-2018R1A2A1A05077703, NRF-2020R1A5A2017323]
  2. NRF grant - Ministry of Education [2017R1A6A3A04010231]
  3. Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute - Ministry of Health and Welfare [HI16C1501, HI15C0001]
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017M3A9G7073086, 2017R1A6A3A04010231] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite its outstanding clinical success, immune checkpoint blockade remains ineffective in many patients. Accordingly, combination therapy capable of achieving greater antitumor immunity is urgently required. Here, we report that limiting glutamine metabolism in cancer cells bolsters the effectiveness of anti-programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody. Inhibition of glutamine utilization increased PD-L1 levels in cancer cells, thereby inactivating co-cultured T cells. Under glutamine-limited conditions, reduced cellular GSH levels caused an upregulation of PD-L1 expression by impairing SERCA activity, which activates the calcium/NF-kappa B signaling cascade. Consequently, in tumors grown in immunocompetent mice, inhibition of glutamine metabolism decreased the antitumor activity of T cells. In combination with anti-PD-L1, however, glutamine depletion strongly promoted the antitumor efficacy of T cells in vitro and in vivo due to simultaneous increases in Fas/CD95 levels. Our results demonstrate the relevance of cancer glutamine metabolism to antitumor immunity and suggest that co-targeting of glutamine metabolism and PD-L1 represents a promising therapeutic approach.

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