4.7 Review

Immune control by amino acid catabolism during tumorigenesis and therapy

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS CANCER
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 162-175

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41568-019-0106-z

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. US National Institutes of Health (NIH) [AI103347]
  2. Cancer Research UK
  3. Faculty of Medical Sciences at Newcastle University
  4. NIH [CA191191]
  5. W.W. Smith Trust
  6. Lankenau Medical Center Foundation
  7. Main Line Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune checkpoints arise from physiological changes during tumorigenesis that reprogramme inflammatory, immunological and metabolic processes in malignant lesions and local lymphoid tissues, which constitute the immunological tumour microenvironment (TME). Improving clinical responses to immune checkpoint blockade will require deeper understanding of factors that impact local immune balance in the TME. Elevated catabolism of the amino acids tryptophan (Trp) and arginine (Arg) is a common TME hallmark at clinical presentation of cancer. Cells catabolizing Trp and Arg suppress effector T cells and stabilize regulatory T cells to suppress immunity in chronic inflammatory diseases of clinical importance, including cancers. Processes that induce Trp and Arg catabolism in the TME remain incompletely defined. Indoleamine 2,3 dioxygenase (IDO) and arginase 1 (ARG1), which catabolize Trp and Arg, respectively, respond to inflammatory cues including interferons and transforming growth factor-beta (TGF beta) cytokines. Dying cells generate inflammatory signals including DNA, which is sensed to stimulate the production of type I interferons via the stimulator of interferon genes (STING) adaptor. Thus, dying cells help establish local conditions that suppress antitumour immunity to promote tumorigenesis. Here, we review evidence that Trp and Arg catabolism contributes to inflammatory processes that promote tumorigenesis, impede immune responses to therapy and might promote neurological comorbidities associated with cancer.

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