Functional Diversity of Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells: The Multitasking Hydra of Cancer

Asha Jayakumar and Alfred L. M. Bothwell
J Immunol September 1, 2019, 203 (5) 1095-1103; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1900500

Abstract

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are immature suppressive cells found in tumors and immunological niches. In this article, we highlight the ability of MDSCs to promote IL-17–producing T cells (Th17) and regulatory T cells in addition to suppressing cytotoxic T cells in different tumor models. These interactions between MDSCs and T cells support tumor growth because IL-17 is tumorigenic in many cancer types and regulatory T cells suppress antitumor T cells. Besides T cells, MDSCs promote regulatory B cells and suppress overall B cell function; however, tumor-evoked regulatory B cells also regulate MDSC function, suggesting cross-regulation between MDSCs and B cells. These multiple functions shed light on how MDSCs dysregulate several arms of host immune response. Moreover, MDSCs promote tumor cell survival and angiogenesis to support tumors. Therefore, the multifunctional feature of MDSCs make them attractive immunotherapeutic targets.

Introduction

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are gaining importance because of their key role in promoting resistance to current therapies in different types of cancer (1–3). In cancer, tumor-derived growth factors and inflammatory cytokines increase proliferation but prevent terminal differentiation of myeloid cells, resulting in increased frequencies of MDSCs (4). This is consistent with their initial characterization as immature cells of monocytic or granulocytic origin. They are distinct from monocytes and neutrophils because of their ability to suppress Ag-specific and non–Ag-specific T cells in many tumor models. Historically, MDSCs were considered inhibitory macrophages (5). However, MDSCs are phenotypically distinct from macrophages and dendritic cells (DCs) because of reduced expression of F4/80 (macrophage marker), MHC class II (Ag-presenting molecule) and CD11c (DC marker) (6). During their lifespan, some MDSCs differentiate to tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and DCs and others remain undifferentiated (7, 8) (Fig. 1). Although TAMs suppress T cells, they mainly promote an IL-4–dependent type 2 response, produce epidermal growth factor (EGF), and produce proteases to promote tumors (9). Therefore, MDSCs have a robust immunosuppressive activity among myeloid cells in cancer.

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.

Diverse functions of MDSCs in cancer. MDSCs are generated from hematopoietic stem cells from the BM under the influence of growth factors, including GM-CSF, G-CSF, and COX-2. They acquire immunosuppressive potential on activation by cytokines, including IL-6 and IL-4. COX-2 by itself can expand MDSCs and confer suppressive function. Based on the expression of Ly6C and Ly6G Ags, MDSCs can be separated into M-MDSCs, I-MDSCs, and PMN-MDSCs. They suppress T cell function, promote expansion of Tregs and Th17 cells, modulate B cells by both suppressing B cells and promoting regulatory B cells (Bregs), and also produce inflammatory cytokines. Overall, MDSCs use these different mechanisms to promote tumor growth, angiogenesis, and metastasis.

MDSCs were originally identified by the Gr-1 Ab (clone RB6-8C5), which recognizes both Ly6C (monocyte marker) and Ly6G (granulocyte marker) Ags (6). However, Gr-1 Ab binds with more affinity to Ly6G than to Ly6C. As a result, CD11b+Gr-1lo cells are identified as monocytic MDSCs (M-MDSCs) and CD11b+Gr-1hi cells as polymorphonuclear MDSCs (PMN-MDSCs) (10). Abs specific to Ly6C or Ly6G showed that M-MDSCs are CD11b+Ly6C+Ly6G− and PMN-MDSCs are CD11b+Ly6G+Ly6Clo (11). Recently, a consensus was reached about the criteria for classifying myeloid cells as MDSCs (11). Myeloid cells expressing Ly6C or Ly6G and capable of suppressing T cell proliferation or function are identified as MDSCs. Some studies report the function of total MDSCs (CD11b+Gr-1+), but others delineate subset-specific mechanisms of MDSCs (Table I). Evaluating the importance of MDSC subsets in dysregulating antitumor immunity is useful for defining effective treatment strategies. For example, in colon cancer, several reports show that M-MDSCs promote tumor growth by suppressing T cells (12–14), but recent studies show that PMN-MDSCs are also critical for tumor progression (15–17). In addition to M-MDSCs, an intermediate MDSC (I-MDSC) subset was found in spleens of tumor-bearing ApcMin/+ mice (18), which have high circulating levels of GM-CSF (19). Compared with M-MDSCs, I-MDSCs express intermediate levels of Ly6C and Ly6G, suggesting a heterogeneous composition of cells within this subset (20). Consistently, an I-MDSC–like subset accumulated in mice with CT26 colon carcinoma overexpressing GM-CSF and in mice with breast tumor cells expressing high GM-CSF (6, 10). In lung cancer, patients with more M-MDSCs experienced disease relapse after treatment (21). However, in murine lung cancer, there is higher accumulation of PMN-MDSCs compared with M-MDSCs, and most studies report the suppressive potential of total MDSCs (22–24). Therefore, additional evidence will provide a complete picture of MDSC function in different tumor models.

View this table:
Table I. MDSCs are identified by CD11b+Gr-1+ as total MDSCs, with Ly6C as M-MDSCs, or with Ly6G as PMN-MDSCs or G-MDSCs

MDSCs also express Tie2 and CD31 that are markers of endothelial cells (5, 6). Consistently in a colorectal cancer (CRC) tumor model (MC26), they acquire vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor and VE-cadherin expression and incorporate into tumor endothelium (25). However, it is unknown if these MDSCs perform the function of endothelial cells. MDSCs from bone marrow (BM) of mice with 4T1 tumors induced bone metastases, suppressed T cells, and differentiated to osteoclasts to cause bone degradation (26). Absence of F4/80 showed that these osteoclasts are not macrophages. The ability of MDSCs to differentiate to other cell types is an indication of their plasticity but also suggests a stem cell–like feature, providing clues about how MDSCs multitask. Stem cells have the ability to differentiate into other cell types. As cells progress to a terminally differentiated state, some genes are silenced to acquire a specific function. In MDSCs, it is likely that the transcriptional programs determining whether MDSCs eventually differentiate into DCs or macrophages or neutrophils are all functional, allowing them to perform multiple functions in response to growth factors or cytokines. Apart from immunosuppression, other mechanisms also contribute to the protumor capabilities of MDSCs, as previously reviewed (27) (Table I). MDSCs thrive in a tumor environment rich in growth factors, cytokines, and chemokines (28). GM-CSF is a growth factor promoting MDSC accumulation, and it activates the transcription factor CEBP/β to control the expansion of MDSC subsets and its ability to suppress Ag-specific T cells (10). IL-6–activated Stat3 also contributes to the suppressive potential of MDSCs (29). A combination of growth factors and cytokines can lead to waves of gene expression changes in MDSCs locally in tumors or systemically to focus their cumulative immunosuppressive strength in preventing cytotoxic T cell expansion and simultaneously perform other tumorigenic functions. The tumor environment could shift the functional direction of each MDSC subset. However, the component of the tumor environment determining this dynamic balance in MDSC function is unclear at present, and understanding the underlying mechanisms is valuable. This concept suggests why MDSCs occupy an important niche in promoting tumor development in a variety of cancers and why it is a hurdle for effective immunotherapy.

To consider new strategies for targeting MDSCs in cancer, we aimed to gain better understanding of the functional diversity of MDSCs by evaluating all mechanisms by which MDSCs support tumors. In this article, we offer our perspective about the diverse roles of MDSC subsets in modulating T and B cell immunity and other tumorigenic functions.

Regulation of T cell immunity

MDSCs suppress CD4 and CD8 T cells.

The immunosuppressive function of MDSCs is critical for their classification and distinction from mature myeloid cells. IL-4Rα on MDSCs is linked to their immunosuppressive potential due to IL-4R–dependent activation of arginase and inducible NO synthase (iNOS) (12). Arginase prevents non–Ag-specific T cell proliferation by depleting essential nutrients such as arginine (12, 30). iNOS in M-MDSCs produces NO to suppress T cells by nitrating the TCR, which blocks downstream signaling events required for activating T cells (22, 31). IL-4Rα on MDSCs mediates suppression of both Ag-specific and non–Ag-specific T cells in breast tumor (4T1) and colon cancer (CT26) models (32). In murine melanoma (B16 tumors overexpressing IDO), M-MDSCs rather than PMN-MDSCs from tumors suppress non–Ag-specific T cells, express IL-4Rα and arginase, and correlate with tumor growth (30). Loss of autophagy-related genes in M-MDSCs increases MHC class II expression to promote CD8 T cell cytotoxicity and CD4 T cell proliferation in murine melanoma (33). In general, M-MDSCs are more suppressive than PMN-MDSCs (4). PMN-MDSCs primarily suppress Ag-specific T cells by producing reactive oxygen species (ROS) (22). NADPH oxidase (NOX2) produces ROS in MDSCs from colon cancer (CT26 and MC38), lung cancer (Lewis lung carcinoma [LLC]), mammary cancer (DA3), and fibrosarcomas (MethA and C3 sarcomas) (23). These findings demonstrate that M-MDSCs and PMN-MDSCs use different mechanisms for suppressing T cells (4). However, in EL-4 tumor-bearing mice, both MDSC subsets from spleen suppressed Ag-specific CD8 T cells similarly, and their suppressive function was independent of IL-4Rα (22). Similarly, peripheral blood MDSCs from different tumor models, such as 4T1, CT26, and TS/A (mammary carcinoma), were not dependent on IL-4Rα for suppressing Ag-specific T cells (34).

Programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) belongs to the B7 family of ligands that regulate T cells. Although blockade of PD-L1 reversed T cell suppression by MDSCs under hypoxic conditions (35), PD-L1 on in vitro–generated MDSCs or MDSCs from EL-4 tumor-bearing mice did not suppress T cells (22, 36). When coinhibited with other mediators of suppression, such as TGF-β or NO, PD-L1 appears to mediate T cell suppression (30). This suggests that other coinhibitory ligands in the B7 family, such as B7-H3, B7-H4, and V-domain Ig suppressor of T cell activation (VISTA), which are known to inhibit T cell proliferation, could mediate the suppressive function of MDSCs (37). Moreover, cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2)–induced PG 2 (PGE2) in MDSCs promotes immunosuppressive function by upregulating IDO among other mediators of T cell suppression (38). IDO is an important mechanism of immunosuppression preventing antitumor immunity (39). Therefore, more than one mechanism contributes to the suppressive function of MDSCs. A better understanding of mechanisms contributing to MDSC-mediated suppression of antitumor cells is vital for improving anticancer therapy and for the design and development of new therapeutics that can have a lasting effect on the survival and overall quality of life of cancer patients.

MDSCs support Th17 cell function

In murine colon cancer, MDSCs (Gr-1+ myeloid cells) but not macrophages increase IL-17 production by CD4+ T cells to promote tumor progression (40). Similarly, in a carcinoma model, MDSCs differentiated lL-17–producing CD4 T cells, whereas TAMs promoted TGF-β–producing T cells, which are likely T regulatory cells (Tregs) (41). We showed that I-MDSCs promote the development of IL-17–producing CD4 T cells, which is essential for intestinal tumor progression (20). CD4 T cells differentiate into Th1 cells, Th2 cells, Th17 cells, or Tregs, depending on the cytokines they are exposed to. The cytokines IL-1β, IL-23, and IL-6 differentiate CD4 T cells to disease-causing (pathogenic) Th17 cells in experimental autoimmune encephalitis compared with Th17 cells generated with IL-6 and TGF-β (42). Total MDSCs from ovarian cancer produced IL-1β, IL-23, IL-6, and TGF-β, which upregulate endogenous NO synthase 2 (NOS2) in T cells to promote IL-17 production (43). Addition of TGF-β to the cytokine mixture (IL-1β, IL-23, and IL-6) inducing Th17 cells dramatically decreased IL-17 production by CD4 T cells; however, these Th17 cells produced more IL-17 than unstimulated T cells. Therefore, MDSCs producing TGF-β promoted some IL-17 production, and the absence of TGF-β possibly increased IL-17 production (43). TGF-β also reduced expression of IL-23R, which suggests that it dampens the responsiveness of Th17 cells to IL-23 (42) and likely reduces the survival of Th17 cells in vivo. This is consistent with the necessity of IL-23 for maintaining pathogenic Th17 cells (44) and with the ability of IL-23 in increasing IL-17–producing CD4 T cells in the brain and spinal cord to promote disease severity in experimental autoimmune encephalitis (45). Therefore, MDSCs producing less TGF-β could promote Th17 cells with more disease-causing potential. These studies shed light on the ability of MDSCs to generate Th17 cells and suppress antitumor T cells to accomplish the overall aim of promoting tumor growth (Fig. 1). Moreover, MDSC-like cells regulate Th17 cells by recruiting them to tumors. In murine skin cancer, immature Gr-1+ myeloid cells lacking suppressive function recruited CD4 T cells via CCL4 to promote carcinogen-induced skin tumors by IL-17 (46). In castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), PMN-MDSCs produced abundant IL-23, which activated the Stat3-RORγ pathway in tumor cells to promote survival (47). IL-23 produced by these PMN-MDSCs could also promote Th17 differentiation; however, it is unknown if this mechanism occurs concurrently in CRPC. Together, these studies illustrate the potential of MDSCs to alter the dynamic balance of the tumor immune system to create a self-promoting cycle.

Regulation between MDSCs and Tregs

In mismatch repair-proficient CRC patients, Tregs were associated with reduced cytotoxic response (48). Tregs were increased in CRC patients before surgery, suppressed Ag-specific CD4 T cells, and were associated with tumor recurrence (49). In a colon tumor model, M-MDSCs induced Tregs in vitro, and tumor growth was dependent on MDSC-induced Tregs (50). This study showed that MDSCs induce Tregs and suppress Ag-specific CD4 T cells simultaneously to promote tumors. In a B cell lymphoma model, induction of Tregs was dependent on the arginase activity of MDSCs (51). These tumor-derived MDSCs inhibited Ag-specific CD4 T cell proliferation but promoted the expansion of Tregs from naturally occurring Tregs and not from naive T cells. In this case, inhibition of T cell suppression allowed Treg expansion, suggesting that a shift in MDSC function could favor Treg expansion versus suppression of CD4 T cells. In murine melanoma, IDO-induced Tregs were critical for recruitment of MDSCs and their suppressive function (30). Together, these studies show that MDSCs promote Tregs, and Tregs in turn support MDSC function to promote an immunosuppressive environment conducive for tumor progression.

Interaction between MDSCs and B cells

The functional relationship between MDSCs and B cells is interdependent, in which MDSCs regulate different B cell functions and vice versa. Regulatory B cells (Bregs) are a type of regulatory cell that primarily produce IL-10, accumulate in various cancers, and is one of the immunosuppressive mechanisms supporting tumor progression (52). In MCA205 fibrosarcoma, MDSCs promote Breg-like cells (B220+CD138+) that are dependent on IL-10 and TGF-β for producing IgA Abs (53). These Bregs are similar to regulatory plasma B cells that also produce Abs and suppress antitumor T cells (54). In a 4T1 breast cancer model, MDSCs appear to expand Bregs with high PD-L1 that produce IL-10 and IgA and also suppressed T cells by inducing apoptosis (55). MDSCs also nonselectively suppress B cells to disable another arm of antitumor immunity (54). In an orthotopic lung cancer model (LLC), MDSCs suppressed IL-4– and LPS-activated B cell proliferation in a T cell–dependent and –independent manner (56). Moreover, MDSCs restrict B cell trafficking to lymph nodes by downregulating l-selectin on B and T cells in 4T1 breast cancer (57). Together, these studies show that MDSCs regulate B cells in tumor systems.

CD19+CD20lo Bregs expanded in mice with 4T1 tumors, in which B cells were depleted with CD20 Ab (58). In this study, Bregs promoted the generation of Tregs to support tumor growth and metastasis. On B cells, CD19 is expressed in early development stages and CD20 is expressed in more-differentiated B cells (44). This explains why depleting B cells with CD20 Ab deleted differentiated B cells while allowing less-differentiated CD19+ B cells to develop into Bregs (CD19+CD20lo). In B cell–deficient mice with breast cancer or melanoma, MDSCs were poorly suppressive (59). In this model, tumor-evoked Bregs contributed to the suppressive potential of MDSCs, resulting in increased metastasis. These Bregs regulated the immunosuppressive function of MDSC partly through TGF-β signaling (60). Secretory IgM from B cells in mice with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and LLC tumors promoted the suppressive function of MDSCs (61). These studies show that in breast cancer and melanoma, Bregs contribute to MDSC function, and in fibrosarcoma, lung cancer, and breast cancer, MDSCs promote Bregs, suppress total B cell function, and reduce B cell trafficking. This illustrates the complex role of B cells in dysregulating immunity in cancer.

MDSCs promote tumor cell proliferation

MDSCs produce IL-6, IL-1β, VEGF, and COX-2, all of which promote tumor cell proliferation (4, 62, 63). MDSCs cultured with murine 4T1, CT26, TS/A, or MC38 tumor cells produced more IL-6 compared with tumor cells themselves, showing that MDSCs are a source of IL-6 that supports tumor growth (62). This is consistent with the role of IL-6–induced Stat3 in inhibiting apoptosis to promote tumor cell survival (64). IL-1β promotes tumor cell proliferation by increasing angiogenesis in B16 melanoma and DA/3 mammary adenocarcinoma (65). This is accomplished by inducing chemokines to recruit inflammatory immune cells and promoting VEGF synthesis (66). In this manner, IL-1β activates endothelial cells by VEGF to vascularize tumors, resulting in tumor growth. In several cancers, VEGF is critical for developing tumor vasculature to supply additional growth factors to tumors and for migration of inflammatory and suppressor cells to tumors (67). Similarly, COX-2–induced PG 2 (PGE2) increases angiogenesis and promotes proliferation of tumor cells (68). From these reports, it appears that besides regulating T cell function, MDSCs also produce cytokines, growth factors, and inflammatory mediators to promote tumor growth by preventing apoptosis, supporting angiogenesis, and expanding MDSCs.

MDSC subsets manipulate tumor immunity

Among the various functions of MDSCs, their immunosuppressive ability stands out as their definitive singular feature. M-MDSCs are most immunosuppressive per cell because of their ability to suppress Ag-specific or non–Ag-specific T cells. This was demonstrated in B16-IDO, C26-GM, CT26, and MCA26 tumor models and was associated with their ability to express both arginase and iNOS. In 4T1, C26-GM, or MCA203 fibrosarcoma tumors, CD11b+Gr-1lo cells (M-MDSCs) are relatively more suppressive than CD11b+Gr-1hi or CD11b+Gr-1int subsets (6). PMN-MDSCs supplement this process by suppressing T cells by producing ROS, but their immunosuppressive strength is weaker than M-MDSCs (4, 6, 10). They suppress Ag-specific T cells and are more abundant than M-MDSCs in many tumor models (22). In murine colon cancer, total MDSCs promote Th17 cells, but in another colon tumor model, M-MDSCs expressing CSF-1R promote Tregs that are critical for tumor progression. It is unknown if PMN-MDSCs promote Tregs. PMN-MDSCs produce tumor-promoting factors such as IL-23 to support resistance by increasing tumor growth after surgical removal of prostate tumors (47). Because of IL-23 production, these PMN-MDSCs could promote Th17 cells. This suggests that MDSC subsets could differ in their ability to promote Tregs and Th17 cells. This also raises the question as to how these two processes coexist in the same cancer type. In cancer, Tregs promote tumors by suppressing T cells, and Th17 cells support tumor progression by promoting cell survival and angiogenesis. Occurrence of these processes in colon cancer demonstrates the multitasking capacity of MDSCs in regulating different arms of T cell immunity. These studies also suggest that different MDSC subsets promote Tregs versus Th17 cells in addition to their overall ability to suppress T cells. Although inhibition of suppressive function may not reduce their ability to promote Tregs or Th17 cells, more evidence is required to substantiate these assumptions conclusively.

By inducing epithelial-mesenchymal transition in 4T1 breast tumor cells, M-MDSCs promote the release and migration of tumor cells to metastatic niches (69). In this model, lung-infiltrating PMN-MDSCs upregulate genes associated with metastasis. MDSCs also suppressed cytotoxic CD8 T cells to promote lung metastases in 4T1 breast cancer (70). Consistently, lung metastases were reduced after resection of primary 4T1 breast tumors in Stat6-deficient mice, which was dependent on cytotoxic CD8 activity. A recent study showed that MDSCs suppress T cells by arginase activity to promote lung metastases independent of VEGF activity in a 4T1 breast cancer model (71). These reports suggest that MDSCs promote tumor metastasis by suppressing T cells and by promoting metastatic tumor cell transformation.

Taken together, M-MDSCs are highly immunosuppressive, induce the generation of Tregs, and promote metastasis. In a cancer setting, this is a potent resistance mechanism for preventing cytotoxic activity of antitumor cells both directly and through Tregs. PMN-MDSCs also suppress T cells, promote tumor growth, and metastasis. Therefore, M-MDSCs and PMN-MDSCs possess multiple mechanisms to promote tumorigenesis, supporting the idea that they are versatile and can adapt to suppress the host immune response in a demanding tumor environment (Fig. 1).

Impact on cancer immunotherapy

Immunotherapy is an effective strategy for treating most cancers. The success of checkpoint inhibition in increasing the survival of patients with aggressive lung cancer and melanoma has provided significant relief from high mortality (72). A subset of CRC patients with high mutation burden are also responsive to checkpoint inhibitor treatment (73). However, efficacy of this treatment is reduced because of the emergence of immunosuppressive mechanisms, including MDSCs and Tregs (3, 74).

Existing literature demonstrates the value of targeting MDSCs, and possibilities to block MDSC function in cancer to improve treatment are reviewed previously (28, 74). Efforts to inhibit MDSCs are focused on depleting MDSCs, inhibiting their function, or diverting their differentiation to activating DCs or tumoricidal macrophages (4, 28). M-MDSCs retain the potential to differentiate to macrophages or DCs and therefore are amenable to re-education to immunostimulatory myeloid cells that could prime T cells to generate antitumor T cells (22, 75). The close link between CSF-1R+ MDSCs that are similar to M-MDSCs and melanoma and colon cancer progression suggests that blocking CSF-1R could target M-MDSCs by inhibiting their proliferation (1, 50). In a tumor-free condition, PMN-MDSCs convert to neutrophils that have a short life span and might not result in long-lasting antitumor immunity, unlike Ag-presenting cells such as DCs or macrophages. Studies assessing if MDSC depletion reduces tumor growth use the Gr-1 Ab that primarily depletes PMN-MDSCs. Using Abs that recognize alarmins S100A8 and S100A9, both M-MDSCs and PMN-MDSCs were depleted, resulting in greater decrease of EL4 tumor growth, indicating the importance of M-MDSCs in tumor progression (76). However, these alarmins do not distinguish between PMN-MDSCs and neutrophils. Neutrophils are required for maintaining host immunity, which highlights the importance of finding PMN-MDSC–specific targets. A different approach to targeting PMN-MDSCs is by identifying subsets within PMN-MDSCs that are directly related to tumor development. In non–small cell lung carcinoma patients, PMN-MDSCs expressing lectin-type oxidized low-density lipoprotein receptor-1 (LOX-1) were more immunosuppressive than total PMN-MDSCs, suggesting that LOX-1 could differentiate between PMN-MDSCs and neutrophils (77). This finding suggests that PMN-MDSCs could be specifically depleted using LOX-1 without affecting neutrophils. In CRC, both M-MDSCs and PMN-MDSCs promote tumors. However, the specific mechanisms by which MDSC subsets alter T cells to promote tumor progression in CRC require further study. Although immunosuppression and induction of Tregs by these subsets could be contributing to disease progression, the association of IL-17 and MDSCs with reduced overall survival and the role of MDSCs in promoting Th17 cells in colon cancer pinpoint the importance of the mechanism by which MDSCs regulate Th17 cells (15). By inhibiting the ability of MDSCs in suppressing T cells and promoting Tregs and Th17 cells, there is a better likelihood of promoting antitumor immunity. This has significant potential for defining novel therapies for colon cancer by identifying targets in MDSC subsets.

Several clinical trials of commonly used chemotherapeutic and immunotherapeutic agents for targeting MDSC function in various cancers are currently ongoing (74). Despite these intense efforts to divert MDSC function to antitumor activity, their adaptability to support tumor progression is a hurdle that researchers are fighting to overcome. With recent success of immunotherapy in bringing unprecedented improvement in survival, there is widespread interest in finding more translatable therapies to boost efficacy and reduce toxicity. This exemplifies the vital need to target MDSC mechanisms to improve the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors and surgical removal of tumors. By studying various facets of MDSC function and functional relationships with other immune cell populations, it will be possible to optimally block the tumor-promoting function of MDSCs.

Conclusions

We illustrate the multifarious roles of MDSCs in a tumor-promoting environment. Considering that host immune response is protective, MDSCs are a singular example of how tumors dysregulate antitumor immunity using different mechanisms. The immunosuppressive function of MDSCs has the ability to overpower antitumor immunity and is a signature feature of MDSCs. When other mechanisms of MDSCs are taken into account, we get an overall picture of how MDSCs multitask to accomplish the goal of promoting tumor development. The feedback between MDSCs and tumor cells creates a tumor-promoting cycle, which can be interrupted to identify immunotherapeutic targets. Several questions arise from this analysis of studies about MDSCs. First, M-MDSCs play a critical role in regulating the differentiation of T cells into Tregs in a colon cancer model. The relative contribution of M-MDSCs versus PMN-MDSCs in regulating tumor-promoting Tregs is unclear. Second, the critical component or process in MDSCs that promotes regulatory cells, such as Tregs and Bregs versus proinflammatory T cells such as Th17 cells, is unknown. Third, the interaction between MDSCs and Bregs in breast cancer and melanoma is studied, but their role in CRC is unknown. Depending on the type of cancer and related treatment regimens, targeting MDSCs could improve existing treatments and can serve as indicators of disease progression. Knowledge about MDSC mechanisms in each cancer type could provide critical input for devising targeted therapies to improve existing treatments and reduce the intensity of refractory mechanisms.

Disclosures

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

  • This work was supported by a National Cancer Institute diversity reentry supplement (to A.J.) to parent Grant R01CA168670-01A1 (to A.L.M.B.).

  • Abbreviations used in this article:

    BM
    bone marrow
    Breg
    regulatory B cell
    COX-2
    cyclooxygenase 2
    CRC
    colorectal cancer
    CRPC
    castration-resistant prostate cancer
    DC
    dendritic cell
    I-MDSC
    intermediate MDSC
    iNOS
    inducible NO synthase
    LLC
    Lewis lung carcinoma
    LOX-1
    lectin-type oxidized low-density lipoprotein receptor-1
    MDSC
    myeloid-derived suppressor cell
    M-MDSC
    monocytic MDSC
    NOS2
    NO synthase 2
    PD-L1
    programmed death ligand 1
    PMN-MDSC
    polymorphonuclear MDSC
    ROS
    reactive oxygen species
    TAM
    tumor-associated macrophage
    Treg
    T regulatory cell
    VEGF
    vascular endothelial growth factor.

  • Received May 2, 2019.
  • Accepted June 3, 2019.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Holmgaard, R. B.,
    2. D. Zamarin,
    3. A. Lesokhin,
    4. T. Merghoub,
    5. J. D. Wolchok
    . 2016. Targeting myeloid-derived suppressor cells with colony stimulating factor-1 receptor blockade can reverse immune resistance to immunotherapy in indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase-expressing tumors. EBioMedicine 6: 50–58.
    OpenUrl
    1. Diaz-Montero, C. M.,
    2. M. L. Salem,
    3. M. I. Nishimura,
    4. E. Garrett-Mayer,
    5. D. J. Cole,
    6. A. J. Montero
    . 2009. Increased circulating myeloid-derived suppressor cells correlate with clinical cancer stage, metastatic tumor burden, and doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 58: 49–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Weber, R.,
    2. V. Fleming,
    3. X. Hu,
    4. V. Nagibin,
    5. C. Groth,
    6. P. Altevogt,
    7. J. Utikal,
    8. V. Umansky
    . 2018. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells hinder the anti-cancer activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Front. Immunol. 9: 1310.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Marvel, D.,
    2. D. I. Gabrilovich
    . 2015. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells in the tumor microenvironment: expect the unexpected. J. Clin. Invest. 125: 3356–3364.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Bronte, V.,
    2. E. Apolloni,
    3. A. Cabrelle,
    4. R. Ronca,
    5. P. Serafini,
    6. P. Zamboni,
    7. N. P. Restifo,
    8. P. Zanovello
    . 2000. Identification of a CD11b(+)/Gr-1(+)/CD31(+) myeloid progenitor capable of activating or suppressing CD8(+) T cells. Blood 96: 3838–3846.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Dolcetti, L.,
    2. E. Peranzoni,
    3. S. Ugel,
    4. I. Marigo,
    5. A. Fernandez Gomez,
    6. C. Mesa,
    7. M. Geilich,
    8. G. Winkels,
    9. E. Traggiai,
    10. A. Casati, et al
    . 2010. Hierarchy of immunosuppressive strength among myeloid-derived suppressor cell subsets is determined by GM-CSF. Eur. J. Immunol. 40: 22–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Kusmartsev, S.,
    2. D. I. Gabrilovich
    . 2003. Inhibition of myeloid cell differentiation in cancer: the role of reactive oxygen species. J. Leukoc. Biol. 74: 186–196.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Corzo, C. A.,
    2. T. Condamine,
    3. L. Lu,
    4. M. J. Cotter,
    5. J. I. Youn,
    6. P. Cheng,
    7. H. I. Cho,
    8. E. Celis,
    9. D. G. Quiceno,
    10. T. Padhya, et al
    . 2010. HIF-1α regulates function and differentiation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in the tumor microenvironment. J. Exp. Med. 207: 2439–2453.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Quail, D. F.,
    2. J. A. Joyce
    . 2013. Microenvironmental regulation of tumor progression and metastasis. Nat. Med. 19: 1423–1437.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Marigo, I.,
    2. E. Bosio,
    3. S. Solito,
    4. C. Mesa,
    5. A. Fernandez,
    6. L. Dolcetti,
    7. S. Ugel,
    8. N. Sonda,
    9. S. Bicciato,
    10. E. Falisi, et al
    . 2010. Tumor-induced tolerance and immune suppression depend on the C/EBPbeta transcription factor. Immunity 32: 790–802.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Bronte, V.,
    2. S. Brandau,
    3. S. H. Chen,
    4. M. P. Colombo,
    5. A. B. Frey,
    6. T. F. Greten,
    7. S. Mandruzzato,
    8. P. J. Murray,
    9. A. Ochoa,
    10. S. Ostrand-Rosenberg, et al
    . 2016. Recommendations for myeloid-derived suppressor cell nomenclature and characterization standards. Nat. Commun. 7: 12150.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Bronte, V.,
    2. P. Serafini,
    3. C. De Santo,
    4. I. Marigo,
    5. V. Tosello,
    6. A. Mazzoni,
    7. D. M. Segal,
    8. C. Staib,
    9. M. Lowel,
    10. G. Sutter, et al
    . 2003. IL-4-induced arginase 1 suppresses alloreactive T cells in tumor-bearing mice. J. Immunol. 170: 270–278.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Garton, A. J.,
    2. S. Seibel,
    3. L. Lopresti-Morrow,
    4. L. Crew,
    5. N. Janson,
    6. S. Mandiyan,
    7. E. S. Trombetta,
    8. S. Pankratz,
    9. T. M. LaVallee,
    10. R. Gedrich
    . 2017. Anti-KIT monoclonal antibody treatment enhances the antitumor activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors by reversing tumor-induced immunosuppression. Mol. Cancer Ther. 16: 671–680.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Karakasheva, T. A.,
    2. G. A. Dominguez,
    3. A. Hashimoto,
    4. E. W. Lin,
    5. C. Chiu,
    6. K. Sasser,
    7. J. W. Lee,
    8. G. L. Beatty,
    9. D. I. Gabrilovich,
    10. A. K. Rustgi
    . 2018. CD38+ M-MDSC expansion characterizes a subset of advanced colorectal cancer patients. JCI Insight 3: 97022.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Limagne, E.,
    2. R. Euvrard,
    3. M. Thibaudin,
    4. C. Rébé,
    5. V. Derangère,
    6. A. Chevriaux,
    7. R. Boidot,
    8. F. Végran,
    9. N. Bonnefoy,
    10. J. Vincent, et al
    . 2016. Accumulation of MDSC and Th17 cells in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer predicts the efficacy of a FOLFOX-Bevacizumab drug treatment regimen. Cancer Res. 76: 5241–5252.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Chun, E.,
    2. S. Lavoie,
    3. M. Michaud,
    4. C. A. Gallini,
    5. J. Kim,
    6. G. Soucy,
    7. R. Odze,
    8. J. N. Glickman,
    9. W. S. Garrett
    . 2015. CCL2 promotes colorectal carcinogenesis by enhancing polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cell population and function. Cell Rep. 12: 244–257.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Katoh, H.,
    2. D. Wang,
    3. T. Daikoku,
    4. H. Sun,
    5. S. K. Dey,
    6. R. N. Dubois
    . 2013. CXCR2-expressing myeloid-derived suppressor cells are essential to promote colitis-associated tumorigenesis. Cancer Cell 24: 631–644.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Jayakumar, A.,
    2. A. L. M. Bothwell
    . 2017. Stat6 promotes intestinal tumorigenesis in a mouse model of adenomatous polyposis by expansion of MDSCs and inhibition of cytotoxic CD8 response. Neoplasia 19: 595–605.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Mohammed, A.,
    2. N. B. Janakiram,
    3. Q. Li,
    4. C. I. Choi,
    5. Y. Zhang,
    6. V. E. Steele,
    7. C. V. Rao
    . 2011. Chemoprevention of colon and small intestinal tumorigenesis in APC(Min/+) mice by licofelone, a novel dual 5-LOX/COX inhibitor: potential implications for human colon cancer prevention. Cancer Prev. Res. (Phila.) 4: 2015–2026.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Jayakumar, A.,
    2. A. L. M. Bothwell
    . 2019. RIPK3-induced inflammation by I-MDSCs promotes intestinal tumors. Cancer Res. 79: 1587–1599.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Yamauchi, Y.,
    2. S. Safi,
    3. C. Blattner,
    4. A. Rathinasamy,
    5. L. Umansky,
    6. S. Juenger,
    7. A. Warth,
    8. M. Eichhorn,
    9. T. Muley,
    10. F. J. F. Herth, et al
    . 2018. Circulating and tumor myeloid-derived suppressor cells in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 198: 777–787.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Youn, J. I.,
    2. S. Nagaraj,
    3. M. Collazo,
    4. D. I. Gabrilovich
    . 2008. Subsets of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in tumor-bearing mice. J. Immunol. 181: 5791–5802.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Corzo, C. A.,
    2. M. J. Cotter,
    3. P. Cheng,
    4. F. Cheng,
    5. S. Kusmartsev,
    6. E. Sotomayor,
    7. T. Padhya,
    8. T. V. McCaffrey,
    9. J. C. McCaffrey,
    10. D. I. Gabrilovich
    . 2009. Mechanism regulating reactive oxygen species in tumor-induced myeloid-derived suppressor cells. J. Immunol. 182: 5693–5701.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. D’Amico, L.,
    2. S. Mahajan,
    3. A. H. Capietto,
    4. Z. Yang,
    5. A. Zamani,
    6. B. Ricci,
    7. D. B. Bumpass,
    8. M. Meyer,
    9. X. Su,
    10. A. Wang-Gillam, et al
    . 2016. Dickkopf-related protein 1 (Dkk1) regulates the accumulation and function of myeloid derived suppressor cells in cancer. J. Exp. Med. 213: 827–840.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Yang, L.,
    2. L. M. DeBusk,
    3. K. Fukuda,
    4. B. Fingleton,
    5. B. Green-Jarvis,
    6. Y. Shyr,
    7. L. M. Matrisian,
    8. D. P. Carbone,
    9. P. C. Lin
    . 2004. Expansion of myeloid immune suppressor Gr+CD11b+ cells in tumor-bearing host directly promotes tumor angiogenesis. Cancer Cell 6: 409–421.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Sawant, A.,
    2. J. Deshane,
    3. J. Jules,
    4. C. M. Lee,
    5. B. A. Harris,
    6. X. Feng,
    7. S. Ponnazhagan
    . 2013. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells function as novel osteoclast progenitors enhancing bone loss in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 73: 672–682.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Ben-Meir, K.,
    2. N. Twaik,
    3. M. Baniyash
    . 2018. Plasticity and biological diversity of myeloid derived suppressor cells. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 51: 154–161.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Gabrilovich, D. I.,
    2. S. Ostrand-Rosenberg,
    3. V. Bronte
    . 2012. Coordinated regulation of myeloid cells by tumours. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 12: 253–268.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Condamine, T.,
    2. J. Mastio,
    3. D. I. Gabrilovich
    . 2015. Transcriptional regulation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. J. Leukoc. Biol. 98: 913–922.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Holmgaard, R. B.,
    2. D. Zamarin,
    3. Y. Li,
    4. B. Gasmi,
    5. D. H. Munn,
    6. J. P. Allison,
    7. T. Merghoub,
    8. J. D. Wolchok
    . 2015. Tumor-expressed IDO recruits and activates MDSCs in a Treg-dependent manner. Cell Rep. 13: 412–424.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Nagaraj, S.,
    2. A. G. Schrum,
    3. H. I. Cho,
    4. E. Celis,
    5. D. I. Gabrilovich
    . 2010. Mechanism of T cell tolerance induced by myeloid-derived suppressor cells. J. Immunol. 184: 3106–3116.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Gallina, G.,
    2. L. Dolcetti,
    3. P. Serafini,
    4. C. De Santo,
    5. I. Marigo,
    6. M. P. Colombo,
    7. G. Basso,
    8. F. Brombacher,
    9. I. Borrello,
    10. P. Zanovello, et al
    . 2006. Tumors induce a subset of inflammatory monocytes with immunosuppressive activity on CD8+ T cells. J. Clin. Invest. 116: 2777–2790.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Alissafi, T.,
    2. A. Hatzioannou,
    3. K. Mintzas,
    4. R. M. Barouni,
    5. A. Banos,
    6. S. Sormendi,
    7. A. Polyzos,
    8. M. Xilouri,
    9. B. Wielockx,
    10. H. Gogas,
    11. P. Verginis
    . 2018. Autophagy orchestrates the regulatory program of tumor-associated myeloid-derived suppressor cells. J. Clin. Invest. 128: 3840–3852.
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Sinha, P.,
    2. K. H. Parker,
    3. L. Horn,
    4. S. Ostrand-Rosenberg
    . 2012. Tumor-induced myeloid-derived suppressor cell function is independent of IFN-γ and IL-4Rα. Eur. J. Immunol. 42: 2052–2059.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Noman, M. Z.,
    2. G. Desantis,
    3. B. Janji,
    4. M. Hasmim,
    5. S. Karray,
    6. P. Dessen,
    7. V. Bronte,
    8. S. Chouaib
    . 2014. PD-L1 is a novel direct target of HIF-1α, and its blockade under hypoxia enhanced MDSC-mediated T cell activation. J. Exp. Med. 211: 781–790.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Rössner, S.,
    2. C. Voigtländer,
    3. C. Wiethe,
    4. J. Hänig,
    5. C. Seifarth,
    6. M. B. Lutz
    . 2005. Myeloid dendritic cell precursors generated from bone marrow suppress T cell responses via cell contact and nitric oxide production in vitro. [Published erratum appears in 2016 Eur. J. Immunol. 46: 2679.] Eur. J. Immunol. 35: 3533–3544.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Ni, L.,
    2. C. Dong
    . 2017. New B7 family checkpoints in human cancers. Mol. Cancer Ther. 16: 1203–1211.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Obermajer, N.,
    2. R. Muthuswamy,
    3. J. Lesnock,
    4. R. P. Edwards,
    5. P. Kalinski
    . 2011. Positive feedback between PGE2 and COX2 redirects the differentiation of human dendritic cells toward stable myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Blood 118: 5498–5505.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Prendergast, G. C.,
    2. W. P. Malachowski,
    3. J. B. DuHadaway,
    4. A. J. Muller
    . 2017. Discovery of IDO1 inhibitors: from bench to bedside. Cancer Res. 77: 6795–6811.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Grivennikov, S. I.,
    2. K. Wang,
    3. D. Mucida,
    4. C. A. Stewart,
    5. B. Schnabl,
    6. D. Jauch,
    7. K. Taniguchi,
    8. G. Y. Yu,
    9. C. H. Osterreicher,
    10. K. E. Hung, et al
    . 2012. Adenoma-linked barrier defects and microbial products drive IL-23/IL-17-mediated tumour growth. Nature 491: 254–258.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Chatterjee, S.,
    2. S. Das,
    3. P. Chakraborty,
    4. A. Manna,
    5. M. Chatterjee,
    6. S. K. Choudhuri
    . 2013. Myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) can induce the generation of Th17 response from naïve CD4+ T cells. Immunobiology 218: 718–724.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Ghoreschi, K.,
    2. A. Laurence,
    3. X. P. Yang,
    4. C. M. Tato,
    5. M. J. McGeachy,
    6. J. E. Konkel,
    7. H. L. Ramos,
    8. L. Wei,
    9. T. S. Davidson,
    10. N. Bouladoux, et al
    . 2010. Generation of pathogenic T(H)17 cells in the absence of TGF-β signalling. Nature 467: 967–971.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Obermajer, N.,
    2. J. L. Wong,
    3. R. P. Edwards,
    4. K. Chen,
    5. M. Scott,
    6. S. Khader,
    7. J. K. Kolls,
    8. K. Odunsi,
    9. T. R. Billiar,
    10. P. Kalinski
    . 2013. Induction and stability of human Th17 cells require endogenous NOS2 and cGMP-dependent NO signaling. J. Exp. Med. 210: 1433–1445.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Paul, W. E.
    2013. Fundamental Immunology. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia.
  45. ↵
    1. McGeachy, M. J.,
    2. K. S. Bak-Jensen,
    3. Y. Chen,
    4. C. M. Tato,
    5. W. Blumenschein,
    6. T. McClanahan,
    7. D. J. Cua
    . 2007. TGF-beta and IL-6 drive the production of IL-17 and IL-10 by T cells and restrain T(H)-17 cell-mediated pathology. Nat. Immunol. 8: 1390–1397.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Ortiz, M. L.,
    2. V. Kumar,
    3. A. Martner,
    4. S. Mony,
    5. L. Donthireddy,
    6. T. Condamine,
    7. J. Seykora,
    8. S. C. Knight,
    9. G. Malietzis,
    10. G. H. Lee, et al
    . 2015. Immature myeloid cells directly contribute to skin tumor development by recruiting IL-17-producing CD4+ T cells. J. Exp. Med. 212: 351–367.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. Calcinotto, A.,
    2. C. Spataro,
    3. E. Zagato,
    4. D. Di Mitri,
    5. V. Gil,
    6. M. Crespo,
    7. G. De Bernardis,
    8. M. Losa,
    9. M. Mirenda,
    10. E. Pasquini, et al
    . 2018. IL-23 secreted by myeloid cells drives castration-resistant prostate cancer. Nature 559: 363–369.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. ↵
    1. Le Gouvello, S.,
    2. S. Bastuji-Garin,
    3. N. Aloulou,
    4. H. Mansour,
    5. M. T. Chaumette,
    6. F. Berrehar,
    7. A. Seikour,
    8. A. Charachon,
    9. M. Karoui,
    10. K. Leroy, et al
    . 2008. High prevalence of Foxp3 and IL17 in MMR-proficient colorectal carcinomas. Gut 57: 772–779.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Betts, G.,
    2. E. Jones,
    3. S. Junaid,
    4. T. El-Shanawany,
    5. M. Scurr,
    6. P. Mizen,
    7. M. Kumar,
    8. S. Jones,
    9. B. Rees,
    10. G. Williams, et al
    . 2012. Suppression of tumour-specific CD4+ T cells by regulatory T cells is associated with progression of human colorectal cancer. Gut 61: 1163–1171.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Huang, B.,
    2. P. Y. Pan,
    3. Q. Li,
    4. A. I. Sato,
    5. D. E. Levy,
    6. J. Bromberg,
    7. C. M. Divino,
    8. S. H. Chen
    . 2006. Gr-1+CD115+ immature myeloid suppressor cells mediate the development of tumor-induced T regulatory cells and T-cell anergy in tumor-bearing host. Cancer Res. 66: 1123–1131.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Serafini, P.,
    2. S. Mgebroff,
    3. K. Noonan,
    4. I. Borrello
    . 2008. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells promote cross-tolerance in B-cell lymphoma by expanding regulatory T cells. Cancer Res. 68: 5439–5449.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Schwartz, M.,
    2. Y. Zhang,
    3. J. D. Rosenblatt
    . 2016. B cell regulation of the anti-tumor response and role in carcinogenesis. J. Immunother. Cancer 4: 40.
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    1. Xu, X.,
    2. Q. Meng,
    3. U. Erben,
    4. P. Wang,
    5. R. Glauben,
    6. A. A. Kühl,
    7. H. Wu,
    8. C. W. Ma,
    9. M. Hu,
    10. Y. Wang, et al
    . 2017. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells promote B-cell production of IgA in a TNFR2-dependent manner. Cell. Mol. Immunol. 14: 597–606.
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    1. Sarvaria, A.,
    2. J. A. Madrigal,
    3. A. Saudemont
    . 2017. B cell regulation in cancer and anti-tumor immunity. Cell. Mol. Immunol. 14: 662–674.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Shen, M.,
    2. J. Wang,
    3. W. Yu,
    4. C. Zhang,
    5. M. Liu,
    6. K. Wang,
    7. L. Yang,
    8. F. Wei,
    9. S. E. Wang,
    10. Q. Sun,
    11. X. Ren
    . 2018. A novel MDSC-induced PD-1-PD-L1+ B-cell subset in breast tumor microenvironment possesses immuno-suppressive properties. OncoImmunology 7: e1413520.
  56. ↵
    1. Wang, Y.,
    2. C. C. Schafer,
    3. K. P. Hough,
    4. S. Tousif,
    5. S. R. Duncan,
    6. J. F. Kearney,
    7. S. Ponnazhagan,
    8. H. C. Hsu,
    9. J. S. Deshane
    . 2018. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells impair B cell responses in lung cancer through IL-7 and STAT5. J. Immunol. 201: 278–295.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. ↵
    1. Ku, A. W.,
    2. J. B. Muhitch,
    3. C. A. Powers,
    4. M. Diehl,
    5. M. Kim,
    6. D. T. Fisher,
    7. A. P. Sharda,
    8. V. K. Clements,
    9. K. O’Loughlin,
    10. H. Minderman, et al
    . 2016. Tumor-induced MDSC act via remote control to inhibit L-selectin-dependent adaptive immunity in lymph nodes. Elife 5: e17375.
  58. ↵
    1. Olkhanud, P. B.,
    2. B. Damdinsuren,
    3. M. Bodogai,
    4. R. E. Gress,
    5. R. Sen,
    6. K. Wejksza,
    7. E. Malchinkhuu,
    8. R. P. Wersto,
    9. A. Biragyn
    . 2011. Tumor-evoked regulatory B cells promote breast cancer metastasis by converting resting CD4+ T cells to T-regulatory cells. Cancer Res. 71: 3505–3515.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. ↵
    1. Bodogai, M.,
    2. K. Moritoh,
    3. C. Lee-Chang,
    4. C. M. Hollander,
    5. C. A. Sherman-Baust,
    6. R. P. Wersto,
    7. Y. Araki,
    8. I. Miyoshi,
    9. L. Yang,
    10. G. Trinchieri,
    11. A. Biragyn
    . 2015. Immunosuppressive and prometastatic functions of myeloid-derived suppressive cells rely upon education from tumor-associated B cells. Cancer Res. 75: 3456–3465.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Bodogai, M.,
    2. C. Lee Chang,
    3. K. Wejksza,
    4. J. Lai,
    5. M. Merino,
    6. R. P. Wersto,
    7. R. E. Gress,
    8. A. C. Chan,
    9. C. Hesdorffer,
    10. A. Biragyn
    . 2013. Anti-CD20 antibody promotes cancer escape via enrichment of tumor-evoked regulatory B cells expressing low levels of CD20 and CD137L. Cancer Res. 73: 2127–2138.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    1. Tang, C. H.,
    2. S. Chang,
    3. A. Hashimoto,
    4. Y. J. Chen,
    5. C. W. Kang,
    6. A. R. Mato,
    7. J. R. Del Valle,
    8. D. I. Gabrilovich,
    9. C. C. Hu
    . 2018. Secretory IgM exacerbates tumor progression by inducing accumulations of MDSCs in mice. Cancer Immunol. Res. 6: 696–710.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. ↵
    1. Beury, D. W.,
    2. K. H. Parker,
    3. M. Nyandjo,
    4. P. Sinha,
    5. K. A. Carter,
    6. S. Ostrand-Rosenberg
    . 2014. Cross-talk among myeloid-derived suppressor cells, macrophages, and tumor cells impacts the inflammatory milieu of solid tumors. J. Leukoc. Biol. 96: 1109–1118.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Kujawski, M.,
    2. M. Kortylewski,
    3. H. Lee,
    4. A. Herrmann,
    5. H. Kay,
    6. H. Yu
    . 2008. Stat3 mediates myeloid cell-dependent tumor angiogenesis in mice. J. Clin. Invest. 118: 3367–3377.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Yu, H.,
    2. D. Pardoll,
    3. R. Jove
    . 2009. STATs in cancer inflammation and immunity: a leading role for STAT3. Nat. Rev. Cancer 9: 798–809.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Voronov, E.,
    2. D. S. Shouval,
    3. Y. Krelin,
    4. E. Cagnano,
    5. D. Benharroch,
    6. Y. Iwakura,
    7. C. A. Dinarello,
    8. R. N. Apte
    . 2003. IL-1 is required for tumor invasiveness and angiogenesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100: 2645–2650.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. ↵
    1. Voronov, E.,
    2. Y. Carmi,
    3. R. N. Apte
    . 2014. The role IL-1 in tumor-mediated angiogenesis. Front. Physiol. 5: 114.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Goel, H. L.,
    2. A. M. Mercurio
    . 2013. VEGF targets the tumour cell. Nat. Rev. Cancer 13: 871–882.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Stasinopoulos, I.,
    2. T. Shah,
    3. M. F. Penet,
    4. B. Krishnamachary,
    5. Z. M. Bhujwalla
    . 2013. COX-2 in cancer: Gordian knot or Achilles heel? Front. Pharmacol. 4: 34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Ouzounova, M.,
    2. E. Lee,
    3. R. Piranlioglu,
    4. A. El Andaloussi,
    5. R. Kolhe,
    6. M. F. Demirci,
    7. D. Marasco,
    8. I. Asm,
    9. A. Chadli,
    10. K. A. Hassan, et al
    . 2017. Monocytic and granulocytic myeloid derived suppressor cells differentially regulate spatiotemporal tumour plasticity during metastatic cascade. Nat. Commun. 8: 14979.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. ↵
    1. Ostrand-Rosenberg, S.,
    2. M. J. Grusby,
    3. V. K. Clements
    . 2000. Cutting edge: STAT6-deficient mice have enhanced tumor immunity to primary and metastatic mammary carcinoma. J. Immunol. 165: 6015–6019.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    1. Secondini, C.,
    2. O. Coquoz,
    3. L. Spagnuolo,
    4. T. Spinetti,
    5. S. Peyvandi,
    6. L. Ciarloni,
    7. F. Botta,
    8. C. Bourquin,
    9. C. Rüegg
    . 2017. Arginase inhibition suppresses lung metastasis in the 4T1 breast cancer model independently of the immunomodulatory and anti-metastatic effects of VEGFR-2 blockade. OncoImmunology 6: e1316437.
  72. ↵
    1. Herbst, R. S.,
    2. D. Morgensztern,
    3. C. Boshoff
    . 2018. The biology and management of non-small cell lung cancer. Nature 553: 446–454.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  73. ↵
    1. Overman, M. J.,
    2. R. McDermott,
    3. J. L. Leach,
    4. S. Lonardi,
    5. H. J. Lenz,
    6. M. A. Morse,
    7. J. Desai,
    8. A. Hill,
    9. M. Axelson,
    10. R. A. Moss, et al
    . 2017. Nivolumab in patients with metastatic DNA mismatch repair-deficient or microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer (CheckMate 142): an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 18: 1182–1191.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Fleming, V.,
    2. X. Hu,
    3. R. Weber,
    4. V. Nagibin,
    5. C. Groth,
    6. P. Altevogt,
    7. J. Utikal,
    8. V. Umansky
    . 2018. Targeting myeloid-derived suppressor cells to bypass tumor-induced immunosuppression. Front. Immunol. 9: 398.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  75. ↵
    1. Thevenot, P. T.,
    2. R. A. Sierra,
    3. P. L. Raber,
    4. A. A. Al-Khami,
    5. J. Trillo-Tinoco,
    6. P. Zarreii,
    7. A. C. Ochoa,
    8. Y. Cui,
    9. L. Del Valle,
    10. P. C. Rodriguez
    . 2014. The stress-response sensor chop regulates the function and accumulation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in tumors. Immunity 41: 389–401.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Qin, H.,
    2. B. Lerman,
    3. I. Sakamaki,
    4. G. Wei,
    5. S. C. Cha,
    6. S. S. Rao,
    7. J. Qian,
    8. Y. Hailemichael,
    9. R. Nurieva,
    10. K. C. Dwyer, et al
    . 2014. Generation of a new therapeutic peptide that depletes myeloid-derived suppressor cells in tumor-bearing mice. Nat. Med. 20: 676–681.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Condamine, T.,
    2. G. A. Dominguez,
    3. J. I. Youn,
    4. A. V. Kossenkov,
    5. S. Mony,
    6. K. Alicea-Torres,
    7. E. Tcyganov,
    8. A. Hashimoto,
    9. Y. Nefedova,
    10. C. Lin, et al
    . 2016. Lectin-type oxidized LDL receptor-1 distinguishes population of human polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells in cancer patients. Sci. Immunol. 1: aaf8943.
    1. Kusmartsev, S. A.,
    2. Y. Li,
    3. S. H. Chen
    . 2000. GR-1+ myeloid cells derived from tumor-bearing mice inhibit primary T cell activation induced through CD3/CD28 costimulation. J. Immunol. 165: 779–785.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Condamine, T.,
    2. V. Kumar,
    3. I. R. Ramachandran,
    4. J. I. Youn,
    5. E. Celis,
    6. N. Finnberg,
    7. W. S. El-Deiry,
    8. R. Winograd,
    9. R. H. Vonderheide,
    10. N. R. English, et al
    . 2014. ER stress regulates myeloid-derived suppressor cell fate through TRAIL-R-mediated apoptosis. J. Clin. Invest. 124: 2626–2639.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ban, Y.,
    2. J. Mai,
    3. X. Li,
    4. M. Mitchell-Flack,
    5. T. Zhang,
    6. L. Zhang,
    7. L. Chouchane,
    8. M. Ferrari,
    9. H. Shen,
    10. X. Ma
    . 2017. Targeting autocrine CCL5-CCR5 axis reprograms immunosuppressive myeloid cells and reinvigorates antitumor immunity. Cancer Res. 77: 2857–2868.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Shen, M.,
    2. J. Wang,
    3. W. Yu,
    4. C. Zhang,
    5. M. Liu,
    6. K. Wang,
    7. L. Yang,
    8. F. Wei,
    9. S. E. Wang,
    10. Q. Sun,
    11. X. Ren
    . 2018. A novel MDSC-induced PD-1−PD-L1+ B-cell subset in breast tumor microenvironment possesses immuno-suppressive properties. Oncoimmunology 7: e1413520.
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section