4.5 Article

M2-like macrophage polarization in high lactic acid-producing head and neck cancer

期刊

CANCER SCIENCE
卷 108, 期 6, 页码 1128-1134

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cas.13244

关键词

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; lactic acid; macrophage polarization; tumor microenvironment; Warburg effect

类别

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, KAKENHI [JP25893085, JP16H04703]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K19005, 16H04703, 17K16902] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reprogramming of glucose metabolism in tumor cells is referred to as the Warburg effect and results in increased lactic acid secretion into the tumor microenvironment. We have previously shown that lactic acid has important roles as a pro-inflammatory and immunosuppressive mediator and promotes tumor progression. In this study, we examined the relationship between the lactic acid concentration and expression of LDHA and GLUT1, which are related to the Warburg effect, in human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Tumors expressing lower levels of LDHA and GLUT1 had a higher concentration of lactic acid than those with higher LDHA and GLUT1 expression. Lactic acid also suppressed the expression of LDHA and GLUT1 in vitro. We previously reported that lactic acid enhances expression of an M2 macrophage marker, ARG1, in murine macrophages. Therefore, we investigated the relationship between the lactic acid concentration and polarization of M2 macrophages in HNSCC by measuring the expression of M2 macrophage markers, CSF1R and CD163, normalized using a pan-macrophage marker, CD68. Tumors with lower levels of CD68 showed a higher concentration of lactic acid, whereas those with higher levels of CSF1R showed a significantly higher concentration of lactic acid. A similar tendency was observed for CD163. These results suggest that tumor-secreted lactic acid is linked to the reduction of macrophages in tumors and promotes induction of M2-like macrophage polarization in human HNSCC.

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

4.5
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