Home Browse cGAS-STING pathway targeted therapies and their applications in the...
ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
▬
✚
Review

cGAS-STING pathway targeted therapies and their applications in the treatment of high-grade glioma

[version 1; peer review: 3 approved]
Shashwat Tripathi
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8172-7532
1,2, Hinda Najem
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4432-9708
1,2, Akanksha Sanjay Mahajan2,3, [...] Peng Zhang1,2, Justin T Low4, Alexander H Stegh5, Michael A Curran6, David M Ashley4, Charles David James1,2, Amy B Heimberger1,2
Shashwat Tripathi
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8172-7532
1,2, Hinda Najem
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4432-9708
1,2, [...] Akanksha Sanjay Mahajan2,3, Peng Zhang1,2, Justin T Low4, Alexander H Stegh5, Michael A Curran6, David M Ashley4, Charles David James1,2, Amy B Heimberger1,2
PUBLISHED 07 Sep 2022
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Cell & Molecular Biology gateway.

This article is included in the Glioblastoma Heterogeneity collection.

Abstract

Median survival of patients with glioblastoma (GBM) treated with standard of care which consists of maximal safe resection of the contrast-enhancing portion of the tumor followed by radiation therapy with concomitant adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) remains 15 months. The tumor microenvironment (TME) is known to contain immune suppressive myeloid cells with minimal effector T cell infiltration. Stimulator of interferon genes (STING) is an important activator of immune response and results in production of Type 1 interferon and antigen presentation by myeloid cells. This review will discuss important developments in STING agonists, potential biomarkers for STING response, and new combinatorial therapeutic approaches in gliomas.

Keywords

glioblastoma, cGAS-STING, STING Agonist, immune therapies, tumor microenvironment, immune cells, myeloid cells, T cells

Corresponding author: Amy B Heimberger
Competing interests: ABH has licensed intellectual property that has generated royalty income from Celldex Therapeutics and DNAtrix, serves on the advisory boards of WCG Oncology and Caris Life Sciences, receives research support from AbbVie, Moleculin, Celularity, Codiak Biosciences, and received consulting fees from Novocure and Istari Oncology. A.H.S. is shareholder of Exicure Inc., which develops the Spherical Nucleic Acid (SNA) therapeutic platforms. A.H.S. is inventor on patent US20150031745A1, which describes SNA nanoconjugates to cross the BBB, and on provisional patent 30938/2021-221P, describing SNAs to target the cGAS-STING pathway. DMA serves on the advisory boards of Diverse Bio Pharma, Immunogenesis, MAIA Biotech Inc., Jackson Laboratory. The rest of the authors declare no potential conflict of interest.
Grant information: This work was supported by the following NIH grants awarded to Dr Amy Heimberger: CA120813, NS120547, P30CA060553, P50CA221747, P50CA190991. Dr Heimberger also received support from the Charlie Teo Foundation.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Copyright:  © 2022 Tripathi S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to cite: Tripathi S, Najem H, Mahajan AS et al. cGAS-STING pathway targeted therapies and their applications in the treatment of high-grade glioma [version 1; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 11:1010 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125163.1) First published: 07 Sep 2022, 11:1010 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125163.1) Latest published: 07 Sep 2022, 11:1010 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125163.1)

Introduction

Current standard of care for glioblastoma (GBM) patients consists of maximal safe resection of the contrast-enhancing portion of the tumor followed by radiation therapy with concomitant adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ).1–5 Multiple factors influence GBM patient overall survival (OS), among which are age, Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS), extent of resection achieved, additional therapy received, and tumor molecular determinants such as IDH-mutation and MGMT-methylation status.6–13 Despite improvements to surgical and radiation therapy, as well as the development of many novel biologic and chemical therapeutics, median survival of patients with GBM remains at approximately 15 months.14,15 Among biologic therapeutics, immunotherapies (IOs), such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, have had great success in treating certain cancers, especially melanoma and lung carcinoma,16–20 but have not shown success in treating GBM.21–23

Analysis of the immune cell composition of the GBM tumor microenvironment (TME) has provided information that helps explain the poor response of GBM to immunotherapies.24 The GBM TME is highly enriched with immune suppressive myeloid cells while lacking appreciable effector T cell infiltration.25 Targeting the TME myeloid cell population to limit suppressor cell and enhance effector cell presence could be key to promoting antitumor immunity against GBM.26

Stimulator of interferon genes (STING) is an important activator of immune response by promoting the production of Type 1 interferon and antigen presentation by myeloid cells, which is necessary for T cell activation and effective tumor cell killing.27–32 Recent studies have revealed that the cGAS-STING pathway activity is suppressed in GBM cells33 Its activation is known to contribute to anti-tumoral immune response,30,31 and cGAS-STING pathway activation is therefore an intriguing objective for IOs. The recent development of potent, clinical-grade STING agonists provides an opportunity to explore STING activation as a GBM IO.24,31,34–38 This review will discuss important developments in cGAS/STING pathway targeting, potential biomarkers indicative of cGAS/STING pathway activity, and new combinatorial therapeutic approaches for treating GBM that include agents for activating cGAS/STING.

Overview of cGAS-STING pathway

The innate immune system relies on the binding of pathogen-associated molecular patterns or cellular damage-associated molecular patterns to Pattern Recognition Receptors (PRRs) for activation. PRRs include Toll-Like Receptors (TLRs) and DNA sensors. cGAS, a DNA sensor, recognizes intracellular cytoplasmic DNA (cytDNA) from invading microbes that have been taken up by antigen presenting cells (APCs), or that results from intrinsic genomic DNA damage (Figure 1). Cellular damage increases circulating cDNA which can bind and activate cGAS. Activated cGAS converts ATP and GTP into cyclic GMP-AMP (cGAMP), a second messenger39–41 that activates STING, also known as TMEM173.42,43 Activated STING then triggers the production of type I IFNs and pro-inflammatory cytokines through IRF3 and NF-kB activation.27 In multiple cancers, STING activation has been shown to repolarize macrophages from tumor-promoting M2 type to anti-tumor M1 type.37,44 Recent reports have revealed that in addition to the type I IFN and proinflammatory cytokine response, STING pathway activation can lead to cell apoptosis through an IRF3-mediated mechanism.28 However, this proapoptotic effect appears to be cell-type specific and is primarily triggered in T cells.28 There is a need to investigate the pro-apoptotic function of STING pathway activation in the context of the GBM TME.

62bff81f-d58d-485e-bde5-6b8f2c211603_figure1.gif

Figure 1. cGAS-STING activation in dying tumor cells and APCs. STING activation in antigen presenting cells (APC) occurs upon phagocytosis of tumor cells.

In the phagosome, MHC loading occurs and there is subsequent activation of T cells through T-cell Receptor (TCR) signaling. Degradation of tumor cells leads to the accumulation of cytoplasmic double-stranded DNA (dsDNA). dsDNA activates cGAS triggering the conversion of ATP and GTP into cyclic GMP-AMP (cGAMP), a second messenger. cGAMP activates STING which translocates to nuclear compartment triggering transcription of interferon stimulating genes (ISGs) and production of type I IFNs and proinflammatory cytokines through phosphorylation of IRF3 and NF-kB transcription factors. Similarly, within tumor cells, cDNA accumulation occurs due to DNA damage from chromosome instability or treatment leading to cGAS-STING pathway activation. Production of type I IFNs triggers the membrane translocation of retinoic acid early transcript 1 (RAE1), a NKG2D ligand which interacts with NK Cells resulting in their activation. Created with BioRender.com.

Tumor induced cGAS-STING pathway activation and immune function

DNA damage, leading to increased cytDNA, can arise from either intrinsic nuclear DNA leakage due to tumor cell chromosomal instability or from DNA damage induced by therapies such as radiation or chemotherapy32,45,46 (Figure 1). cGAS pathway activation from cytDNA in tumor cells induces cellular senescence and/or intrinsic apoptotic response through second mitochondria-derived activator of caspase and capase-3.47,48 Triggering of cGAS pathway activity in tumor cells activates natural killer (NK) cell anti-cancer immunity through tumor cell IFN signaling that increases cell surface presentation of NKG2D ligands such as retinoic acid early transcript 1, a structural homologue of MHC class 1, which functions as a co-stimulatory signal for NK and T cell activation.49 NKG2D+ NK cells recognize and bind to NKG2D ligands expressed on tumor cells resulting in tumor cell killing.50 CD8+ T cell binding also occurs to tumor cell NKG2D ligand. However, T cell activation also requires T cell receptor activation.51 cGAS-STING pathway activation also occurs in TME-resident dendritic cells (DCs) that engulf circulating tumor DNA fragments or dying tumor cells29 (Figure 1). Such engulfment promotes an IFN response that triggers DC maturation and leads to stimulation of CD8+ T cell anti-tumor activity.

Knocking out cGAS or STING in a murine mammary carcinoma model has been shown to inhibit anti-tumor immune response due to inhibition of type I IFN release following radiation.32 STING knock out models have also been shown to be defective in eliciting T cell response to gliomas and melanomas.29,31 Conversely, STING activation inversely correlated with tumor myeloid-derived suppressor cell (MDSC) content and MDSC differentiation that can interfere with STAT3 signaling in non-myeloid cells in the TME.34,52–54 In summary, cGAS-STING activation in immune cells through engulfment of dying tumor cells or tumor cell DNA leads to strong anti-tumor immunity and highlights activation of cGAS-STING as an important aspect for ensuring cancer immunotherapy efficacy.

Targeting of cGAS-STING pathway as a cancer therapeutic

Initial preclinical studies using STING agonists involved cancer models in which agonists could be easily injected intratumorally. Results from such studies showed that local STING agonist administration reduces tumor size and/or increases survival for mice bearing melanoma, prostrate adenocarcinoma, gliomas, and head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC).31,35,38,55,56 Melanoma studies also showed that activation of STING in tumor cells and DCs increases the infiltration of NK cells in the TME due to secretion of CXCL10 and CCL5 cytokines, whereas IL-33 secretion inhibited tumor growth.56 Notably, minimal CD8+ T cell activation was reported to accompany NK cell migration.56

Preclinical research for activating cGAS-STING in GBM utilized a mesoporous silica nanoparticle carrying cyclic GMP to stimulate STING.57 Injection of the nanoparticles resulted in complete response in 50% of flank GBM bearing mice.57 In the intracranial GL261-C57BL6 GBM model, intratumoral nanoparticle injection combined with anti-TGF-β receptor 1 inhibitor administration resulted in significant extension of animal subject survival.57 To increase glioma affinity and specificity Wang et al. developed nanoparticles loaded with STING agonist SR717 and that present RGERPPR, a glioma-specific motif.58 This nanoparticle reduced tumor volume by over 50% and increased the 30-day survival rate of GL261 tumor bearing mice by more than 80%.58 Analysis of the TME in animal subjects revealed STING, IRF3, and TBK1, along with increased proinflammatory cytokine levels.58 Promising STING agonist results have also been observed in treating larger animal subjects. Specifically, the treatment of a canine suffering from spontaneously arising high-grade glioma with two doses of ICAS-8779 at 20 ug produced a complete tumor response.38 Postmortem histopathologic analysis of the tumor showed large increases in T cells and macrophages in the TME.38

With respect to cancer patient clinical trials targeting the STING pathway, most have involved the agonist 5,6-Dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid (DMXAA). DMXAA was originally created as a vasculature disruption agent but was incidentally discovered to directly bind to and activate STING in mouse model studies.59 Subsequent studies have shown that DMXAA has a high affinity for murine STING but not for human STING,59 which accounts for the mostly negative results from treating cancer patients with DMXAA (Table 1). Limited results are available from clinical trials using other STING agonists. Results from the use of MK-1454 were initially reported at the European Society of Medical Oncology Meeting in 2018 (NCT03010176).60 Treatment related adverse events occurred in 83% of monotherapy patients as well as 82% of STING agonist plus anti-PD-1 therapy treated patients. No complete or partial responses were reported in the STING monotherapy arm with 24% partial response for patients receiving dual therapy. The partial responses occurred in three HNSCC, one triple negative breast carcinoma, and two anaplastic thyroid carcinoma patients; treatment outcomes for other cancer types were not reported. In a Phase I, first-in-human multicenter open-label dose-escalation study of ADU-S100, a maximum tolerated dose was not reached, but a partial response was confirmed in one patient (2%) with Merkel cell carcinoma and stable disease was reported in 18 patients (38%) (NCT02675439).61 The most common adverse events from ADU-S100 treatment were anemia, fatigue, nausea, and injection-site pain.

Table 1. STING agonists in clinical trials.

AgentIndicationPhaseCo-therapyClinical trialStatus
ADU-S100Advanced Solid Tumors LymphomaIAnti-PD-1NCT03172936Terminated
IAnti-CTLA-4NCT02675439Terminated
HNSCIIAnti-PD-1NCT03937141Terminated
BMS-986301Advanced Solid TumorsIAnti-PD-L1 Anti-CTLA-4NCT03956680Recruiting
DMXAAAdvanced Solid TumorsINCT01290380Terminated
INCT01299701Terminated
INCT01278849Terminated
INCT01278758Terminated
IDocetaxelNCT01285453Completed
ICarboplatin Paclitaxel DocetaxelNCT01240642Terminated
Metastatic CancerINCT01278758Terminated
NSCLCICarboplatin PaclitaxelNCT00674102Completed
I/IINCT00832494Completed
IIINCT00662597Terminated
IIIDocetaxelNCT00738387Terminated
Prostate CancerIIDocetaxelNCT00111618Completed
Refractory TumorsINCT00856336Completed
RefractoryICarboplatin Paclitaxel
Anti-EGFR		NCT01031212Withdrawn
SCLCIIPaclitaxel CarboplatinNCT01057342Completed
Solid TumorsINCT00003697Completed
INCT00863733Completed
INCT01299415Terminated
E7766Advanced Solid Tumors LymphomaINCT04144140Recruiting
Bladder CancerINCT04109092Withdrawn
GSK3745417Advanced Solid TumorsIAnti-PD-1NCT03843359Recruiting
MK-1454HNSCIIAnti-PD-1NCT04220866Active
Advanced Solid Tumors LymphomaIAnti-PD-1NCT03010176Active
MK2118Advanced Solid Tumors LymphomaIAnti-PD-1NCT03249792Recruiting
SB11285Melanoma HNSC
Advanced Solid Tumors		IAnti-PD-L1NCT04096638Recruiting
SNX281Advanced Solid Tumors LymphomaIAnti-PD-1NCT04609579Recruiting
STAVs Loaded Leukemic CellsLeukemiasIDendritic Cell VaccineNCT05321940Not Yet Recruiting
TAK-50Adenocarcinoma HCC NSCLC HNSC Mesothelioma TNBCIAnti-PD-1NCT05070247Not Yet Recruiting
TAK-676Advanced Solid TumorsIAnti-PD-1NCT04420884Recruiting
NSCLC TNBC HNSCIAnti-PD-1 RadiotherapyNCT04879849Recruiting

Concerns regarding the use of STING agonists

The effects of chronic STING activation and release of proinflammatory cytokines are not fully understood. Reports of STING depletion preventing cancer metastasis and long-term STING activation maintaining cancer stemness,62 promoting mesenchymal subtypes63 and treatment resistance46 highlight current knowledge gaps that need to be addressed to help ensure the safe and effective use of STING agonists in treating cancer patients.46,62,63

In addition, research directed at drug delivery and cell population targeting needs further study. Currently, most available STING agonists must be administered intratumorally due to bioavailability limitations associated with systemic administration and poor metabolic stability.64–67 In addition, systemic delivery and activation of STING can result in severe adverse side effects including autoimmunity and off-target inflammatory response. Some of the existing agonists also have relatively poor cell membrane permeability. Newer oral formulations that are being tested may overcome dose-limiting toxicities that have been reported in several clinical trials.66,67 Additionally, novel delivery platforms using nanoparticles have been shown to improve stability and reduce off target effects/increase dose-response.58

On important consideration when developing STING agonists are species-specific differences in STING ligand affinity and subsequent activation.59,68 Most preclinical models are conducted in mice, however, structural differences between human and mouse STING have been linked to differential species-associated STING activation by DMXAA.59 In addition, a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in STING has been reported in humans and affects type 1 IFN production in 1–20% of the population.69–74 SNPs causing STING missense variants such as R232H, which is unable to respond to c-di-AMP and 3′3′ cGAMP stimulation69 indicate the need to take patient genotypes into account when considering STING agonist therapy. In total, species specific and human SNP variation need to be considered in association with STING agonist development.

Targeting of cGAS-STING has focused on the development of STING agonists while cGAS has been relatively underappreciated despite the potential of a cGAS-targeting therapeutic to more closely mimic STING signaling and produce an endogenous 2,3-cGAMP. Research examining the effects of upstream targeting of cGAS is needed.75,76 Recent reports have shown that cGAMP, a product of cGAS activation, can activate DNA damage response signaling that is independent of canonical IFN pathway activity, and can induce noncanonical inflammasome pathways.75,76 In murine colon cancer models cGAS deficiency has been associated with development of colon tumors, whereas STING and type I IFN receptors knockouts show no significant increase in colon tumor rates.77 These results suggest cGAS as having STING-independent and cancer-relevant activities. As noted above, STING polymorphisms need to be considered when using STING agonists, whereas activation of cGAS would stimulate STING irrespective of patient-specific STING polymorphisms. Still, as is the case for the development of STING agonists, structural differences in mouse and human cGAS need to be considered to ensure proper drug development and productive outcome for the preclinical-to-clinical translation of therapeutic.

Biomarkers of STING efficacy

For any cancer therapeutic the identification of biomarkers indicating therapeutic activity is a necessity for conducting clinical studies. Since STING mutations occur in less than 1% of all cancers,33,78 cancer-associated STING variants are of a lesser concern for variations in individual tumor response to STING agonist therapy. Potential biomarkers of importance include STING promoter methylation status, patient gender, and composition of the TME including the number/percent of glioma associated myeloid cells.

Epigenetic modifications of the STING gene that influence STING expression have been shown in several cancer types as well as in STING-mediated chronic diseases.79–82 Analysis of CpG promotor sites using TCGA GBM Illumina methylation array data reveal that methylation of STING cg16983159 is inversely correlated with STING expression. Analysis of STING promoter methylation status could prove important to evaluating the factors that influence cancer patient STING agonist response.

Epidemiological evidence supports a sex difference in GBM, where males have an increased prevalence and poorer outcome.83 Recent studies identified differences between males and females due to genetic aberrations, cellular programs and immune response. Sex is a known variable that affects both innate and adaptive immune responses.84 The Immunological Genome Project data revealed transcriptional sexual dimorphism in the C56BL/6J mouse where the genes of innate immune pathways increased before and after interferon stimulation in female macrophages.85 In preclinical murine glioma models, sex specific preferential MDSC subtypes have been identified.86 In the peripheral blood of female mice there are increased granulocytic (gMDSCs) and in male tumors there are increased monocytic (mMDSCs). Depletion of gMDSCs showed OS benefit in females only.86 mMDSCs have been linked to radioresistance through suppression of CD8+ T cell function in preclinical colon cancer models.87 As immune check point therapies have emerged, the impact of sex differences on anti-cancer immune functions has begun to be elucidated. In cancers which are responsive to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), the ICI treatment is predominantly more effective in male compared to female patients.88 As such, the efficacy of cGAS-STING agonists that are dependent on interferon stimulating genes (ISGs) particularly in MDCS with combinatory approaches like ICI might also be a function of sex in GBM. Pre-clinical therapeutic assessments would benefit from considering sex as a biological variable as these immunological studies may reveal differences in efficacy and sex-specific resistance mechanisms to inform clinical use.

TME composition has been shown to influence tumor response to IO. A prototypical example involves PD-L1 expression and the presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.89 For STING agonists, the presence of myeloid cell/APC infiltration in the tumor is required for anti-tumor T cell response. TME immune cell composition can be determined through immunohistochemistry or flow cytometry.90 The lack of information on TME cellular composition may have been a confounder for prior Phase I clinical trials of first-generation STING agonists. There are also significant differences in myeloid and T cell infiltration within the TME when comparing across cancers, which could be important in selecting specific cancer patient populations for testing STING agonists (Figure 2). For example, melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer are known responders to IOs and are also known for high T cell infiltration.16–20,91 In contrast, GBM are preferentially enriched with myeloid cells and show infiltration by exhausted T cells that resist conversion to cytotoxic status.92–94

62bff81f-d58d-485e-bde5-6b8f2c211603_figure2.gif

Figure 2. Analysis of CIBERSORT immune infiltration fractions in select cancer types. The myeloid and T cell populations in the TME were compared.

Myeloid cells were defined as: Monocytes, Macrophages (M0, M1, M2), Dendritic Cells (Resting, Activated). T Cells were defined as CD8+, CD4+ (Naïve, Resting Memory, Activated Memory), Follicular Helper, and γδ. Data was obtained from Thorsson V et. al. Immunity 2018. BRCA, Breast Invasive Carcinoma; GBM, Glioblastoma; HNSC, Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma; LGG, Low Grade Glioma; LUAD, Lung Adenocarcinoma; LUSC, Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma; SKCM, Skin Cutaneous Melanoma; UVM, Uveal Melanoma.

Combination therapies

Tumors evade detection and eradication utilizing a wide variety of mechanisms such as down regulation of MHC, production of immunosuppressive cytokines, and recruitment of immune suppressive cell populations. Cancers have been shown to employ these mechanisms, and others, to inhibit translocation of activated immune response mediators such as STING, through epigenetic changes (i.e., hypermethylation of the STING promoter), and by selecting for the expansion of cell with specific mutations, such as those affecting IFN receptor.79–82,95–98 Due to the multiple factors promoting GBM growth, treatment for these tumors will likely require multimodal strategies targeting multiple immune response pathways. There is a growing literature supporting combination therapies that include STING pathway activation (Figure 3).

62bff81f-d58d-485e-bde5-6b8f2c211603_figure3.gif

Figure 3. Major STING combinatorial approaches with additive or synergistic effects.

1) Radiation/chemotherapy and 2) demethylation agents that enhance downstream STING activation either through increasing cytoplasmic DNA (radiation) or decreasing STING promoter methylation (demethylating agents). Other immunotherapies (3 and 4) are synergistic therapies that focus on increasing net STING function and antitumor response through either decreasing anti-inflammatory cytokines (STAT3 inhibition) that at baseline thwart STING response or decreasing T cell deactivation and exhaustion (anti-PD-1/PD-L1). Created with BioRender.com.

Demethylation approaches for enhancing STING responses

Hypermethylation of the STING promoter that reduces STING expression has been reported in gliomas, melanoma, Hepatitis C, and small cell lung cancer.33,79–82 Based on such observations the combination of a STING agonist with a demethylating agent has been investigated in gliomas, melanoma, and gastric adenocarcinoma.33,79,81 As a proof-of-principle demonstration, STING agonist-resistant glioma cells treated with 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine and STING agonist responded with increased expression of IRF3 and IFIT1 that are downstream markers of STING activation. Similarly in melanoma, treatment of cells with 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine induced phosphorylation of IRF3 and increased in CXCL10 and IFN-B following cGAMP induction.79 Similar STING-relevant results have been shown for human gastric, pancreatic and colon cancer cell lines treated with zebularine (a demethylating agent) in combination with cGAMP therapy, which reduced tumor burden and extended OS for animal subjects.81 Analyzing the effects of methylation inhibitors is complicated by the number of gene expressions that are influenced by the use of such inhibitors.99 Nonetheless, available results highlight the promise of combining demethylating agents with STING agonists, which may be especially effective in treating hyper-methylator tumors.100 Methylation analysis of the STING promoter might prove a useful biomarker for selecting patients for STING agonist therapy.

Enhancing DNA damaging responses using STING with radiation

The effects of radiation therapy include activation of the innate and adaptive immune systems following radiation-associated DNA damage leading to robust STING-dependent and -independent type I IFN responses.101 Loss of STING has been associated with decreased reactive oxygen species and DNA double strands which suggest that STING agonists may increase tumor sensitivity to ionizing radiation.55 Certain preclinical study results support this possibility. For example, the combination of the STING agonist SB11285 with radiation in models of HNSCC resulted in significant decrease in tumor growth.55 The combination of ADU-S100 with radiation resulted in tumor volume reduction and an increase in TME CD8+ T cells infiltration in esophageal adenocarcinoma models.102 With respect to combinations involving immune checkpoint inhibitors a sharp increase in PD-L1 expression was observed in association with STING agonist treatment and thereby supporting the use of combined STING agonist and anti-PD-L1 therapy. In metastatic lung models, inhaled or intratumoral administration of nanoparticles of cGAMP (NP-cGAMP), administered with fractionated radiation therapy, showed a synergistic effect leading to robust immune response.103

A potential limitation of STING agonists when used in combination with radiation is the radiation-associated recruitment of MDSCs that confer radiation resistance.87 MDSCs in the TME have been implicated in poor cancer patient prognosis, metastatic disease and immunotherapy resistance.52,104 Activation of type I IFN signaling might be one of the mechanisms recruiting these immunosuppressive cells within the TME.52,87 To limit MDSC recruitment a CCR2 antibody could be used since CCR2 is an MDSC attractant, and CCR2 inhibition has been shown to overcome immunosuppressive radiation effects.87

APC activation while blocking STAT3 immune suppression

Tumor cells and reactive astrocytes expressing p-STAT3 release IL-6 within the TME. The released IL-6 activates STAT3 in immune cells, which neutralizes STING responses due to STAT-3 mediated production of immunosuppressive cytokines (i.e., IL-10 and TGF-β) that inhibit the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and reduce antigen presentation.53,105–108 Elevated expression of STAT3 signaling has been noted in many cancers and is correlated with poor prognosis.109 As such, the combination of STING agonists with STAT3 inhibition may potentially lead to a synergistic effect and further enhance anti-inflammatory responses within the TME.34,52–54,107

Several groups have examined the combination of radiotherapy, an activator of STING through increased cytDNA, and STAT3 inhibition.110–112 In GBM preclinical models in which a STAT3 inhibitor was co-administered with radiotherapy, animal subjects experienced increased antigen presentation and T cell activation within the TME that extended OS.110 Increased immunological synapses, defined as dendritic-T cell interactions, were identified in the combination treatment group.110 Studies involving other types of cancer have also shown that combined STING agonist plus STAT3 inhibitor treatment increases the anti-tumor activity of therapy.53,105 For example, in a murine breast cancer model, administration of a small molecule STAT3 inhibitor or siRNA blockade increased type I IFN signaling following treatment with STING agonist.53 Alterations in the TME were observed with significant increase of CD8+ T cells combined with reduced numbers of Tregs and MDSCs.53

STING agonists in combination with immune checkpoint blockade

ICI has had little success in the treatment of GBM. Increasing tumor effector T cell infiltration and reprogramming the immunosuppressive GBM TME could increase ICI efficacy. Combinatorial use of STING and anti PD-1/PD-L1 is an attractive therapeutic strategy since STING agonists increase T cell infiltration and PD-L1 expression within the TME.63,102,113,114 Additional potential synergistic effects include promoting M2 repolarization to the M1 phenotype and increasing NK cell infiltration.37,44,115 This treatment approach has been evaluated in multiple preclinical studies with varying degrees of success in non-GBM cancer models.35,81,102,113,114,116,117

In preclinical HNSCC models that are known to be non-immunogenic, one study showed that 80% of tumors regressed following dual therapy with STING agonist and anti-PD-L1 antibody.113 Preclinical oral cancer models have shown enhanced tumor rejection and abscopal anti-tumor activity following dual therapy.114 Studies combining CDN ligands with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (STINGVAX) and anti-PD-1 showed tumor regression in the CT26 model of murine colon carcinoma model and rejection of tumor engraftment following rechallenge, suggesting long-term tumor antigen-specific memory from earlier treatment.116

Other studies have tested additional therapeutics when added onto the dual therapy backbone of STING agonist and ICB.35,81,102,117,118 A three-agent therapy that included demethylating agent Zebularine increased animal subject survival and reduced tumor burden in testing multiple cancer cell lines.81 STING agonists can upregulate indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase-1 (IDO1) which promotes tumor growth, so the combination of STING agonist, IDO inhibitor, and anti-PD-1 has been investigated.119 A robust anti-tumor effect has been reported from injecting a cocktail of ICB compounds (anti-PD-1, anti-CTLA-4, and anti-4-1BB) with a STING agonist, showed complete and bilateral tumor reduction in 75% of prostate cancer bearing mice.35 The only side effect noted with this therapy was ulceration at the injection site that resolved within two to three weeks. A study showing increased PD-L1 expression post-treatment with combined radiation and STING agonist support future investigations to evaluate three agent therapies consisting of radiation, STING agonist, and anti-PD-1/PD-L1.102

Conclusions

STING pathway modulation is an emerging therapeutic strategy that may help overcome some of the immunotherapy limitations for treating cancers with low effector T cell levels and/or are myeloid enriched. Despite promising anti-tumor responses to STING agonists when used in preclinical studies, the risk of toxic effects from STING agonist therapy in cancer patients remains of some concern. Treatment optimization by dose de-escalations when STING agonists are used in combination therapies are under investigation. Myelosuppression and other IO-related side effects need to be weighted when creating therapeutic cocktails. Combination therapies with STING agonists may require regimen personalization to achieve benefit for each treated patient.

Data availability

No data are associated with this article.

References

  • 1.  Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ , et al.: Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N. Engl. J. Med. Mar 10 2005; 352(10): 987–996. Publisher Full Text
  • 2.  Sanai N, Polley MY, McDermott MW, et al.: An extent of resection threshold for newly diagnosed glioblastomas. J. Neurosurg. Jul 2011; 115(1): 3–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 3.  Chen L, Guerrero-Cazares H, Ye X, et al.: Increased subventricular zone radiation dose correlates with survival in glioblastoma patients after gross total resection. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. Jul 15 2013; 86(4): 616–622. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 4.  Chaichana KL, Cabrera-Aldana EE, Jusue-Torres I, et al.: When gross total resection of a glioblastoma is possible, how much resection should be achieved? World Neurosurg. Jul-Aug 2014; 82(1-2): e257–e265. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 5.  Almeida JP, Chaichana KL, Rincon-Torroella J, et al.: The value of extent of resection of glioblastomas: clinical evidence and current approach. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 2015; 15(2): 517. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 6.  Miranda A, Blanco-Prieto M, Sousa J, et al.: Breaching barriers in glioblastoma. Part I: Molecular pathways and novel treatment approaches. Int. J. Pharm. Oct 5 2017; 531(1): 372–388. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 7.  Chaichana KL, McGirt MJ, Frazier J, et al.: Relationship of glioblastoma multiforme to the lateral ventricles predicts survival following tumor resection. J. Neurooncol. Sep 2008; 89(2): 219–224. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 8.  Matsuda M, Kohzuki H, Ishikawa E, et al.: Prognostic analysis of patients who underwent gross total resection of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. J. Clin. Neurosci. Apr 2018; 50: 172–176. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 9.  Eseonu CI, Rincon-Torroella J, ReFaey K, et al.: Awake Craniotomy vs Craniotomy Under General Anesthesia for Perirolandic Gliomas: Evaluating Perioperative Complications and Extent of Resection. Neurosurgery. Sep 1 2017; 81(3): 481–489. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 10.  Hegi ME, Diserens AC, Gorlia T, et al.: MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N. Engl. J. Med. Mar 10 2005; 352(10): 997–1003. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 11.  Al-Kharboosh R, Lara-Velazquez M, Prieto L, et al.: The Study of Brain Tumor Stem Cell Invasion. Methods in Molecular Biology (Clifton, NJ). 2019; 1869: 105–116. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 12.  Lara-Velazquez M, Al-Kharboosh R, Prieto L, et al.: The Study of Brain Tumor Stem Cell Migration. Methods in Molecular Biology (Clifton, NJ). 2019; 1869: 93–104. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 13.  Schiapparelli P, Guerrero-Cazares H, Magaña-Maldonado R, et al.: NKCC1 Regulates Migration Ability of Glioblastoma Cells by Modulation of Actin Dynamics and Interacting with Cofilin. EBioMedicine. Jul 2017; 21: 94–103. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 14.  Bush NA, Chang SM, Berger MS: Current and future strategies for treatment of glioma. Neurosurg. Rev. Jan 2017; 40(1): 1–14. Publisher Full Text
  • 15.  Lara-Velazquez M, Al-Kharboosh R, Jeanneret S, et al.: Advances in Brain Tumor Surgery for Glioblastoma in Adults. Brain Sci. Dec 20 2017; 7(12). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 16.  Tawbi HA, Forsyth PA, Algazi A, et al.: Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Melanoma Metastatic to the Brain. N. Engl. J. Med. Aug 23 2018; 379(8): 722–730. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 17.  Gong J, Chehrazi-Raffle A, Reddi S, et al.: Development of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors as a form of cancer immunotherapy: a comprehensive review of registration trials and future considerations. J. Immunother. Cancer. Jan 23 2018; 6(1): 8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 18.  Garon EB, Hellmann MD, Rizvi NA, et al.: Five-Year Overall Survival for Patients With Advanced NonSmall-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Pembrolizumab: Results From the Phase I KEYNOTE-001 Study. J. Clin. Oncol. Oct 1 2019; 37(28): 2518–2527. Publisher Full Text
  • 19.  Brahmer JR, Govindan R, Anders RA, et al.: The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer consensus statement on immunotherapy for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J. Immunother. Cancer. Jul 17 2018; 6(1): 75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 20.  Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A, et al.: Five-year survival outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma treated with pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-001. Ann. Oncol. Apr 1 2019; 30(4): 582–588. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 21.  Nayak L, Molinaro AM, Peters K, et al.: Randomized Phase II and Biomarker Study of Pembrolizumab plus Bevacizumab versus Pembrolizumab Alone for Patients with Recurrent Glioblastoma. Clin. Cancer Res. Feb 15 2021; 27(4): 1048–1057. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 22.  Reardon DA, Brandes AA, Omuro A, et al.: Effect of Nivolumab vs Bevacizumab in Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma: The CheckMate 143 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. Jul 1 2020; 6(7): 1003–1010. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 23.  Bristol-Myers Squibb Announces Phase 3 CheckMate -498 Study Did Not Meet Primary Endpoint of Overall Survival with Opdivo (nivolumab) Plus Radiation in Patients with Newly Diagnosed MGMT-Unmethylated Glioblastoma Multiforme.2019.Reference Source
  • 24.  Ott M, Prins RM, Heimberger AB: The immune landscape of common CNS malignancies: implications for immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. Nov 2021; 18(11): 729–744. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 25.  Goswami S, Walle T, Cornish AE, et al.: Immune profiling of human tumors identifies CD73 as a combinatorial target in glioblastoma. Nat. Med. Jan 2020; 26(1): 39–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 26.  Klemm F, Maas RR, Bowman RL, et al.: Interrogation of the Microenvironmental Landscape in Brain Tumors Reveals Disease-Specific Alterations of Immune Cells. Cell. Jun 25 2020; 181(7): 1643–1660.e17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 27.  Liu S, Cai X, Wu J, et al.: Phosphorylation of innate immune adaptor proteins MAVS, STING, and TRIF induces IRF3 activation. Science. Mar 13 2015; 347(6227): aaa2630. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 28.  Gulen MF, Koch U, Haag SM, et al.: Signalling strength determines proapoptotic functions of STING. Nat. Commun. Sep 5 2017; 8(1): 427. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 29.  Woo SR, Fuertes MB, Corrales L, et al.: STING-dependent cytosolic DNA sensing mediates innate immune recognition of immunogenic tumors. Immunity. Nov 20 2014; 41(5): 830–842. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 30.  Fujita M, Scheurer ME, Decker SA, et al.: Role of type 1 IFNs in antiglioma immunosurveillance--using mouse studies to guide examination of novel prognostic markers in humans. Clin. Cancer Res. Jul 1 2010; 16(13): 3409–3419. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 31.  Ohkuri T, Ghosh A, Kosaka A, et al.: STING contributes to antiglioma immunity via triggering type I IFN signals in the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Immunol. Res. Dec 2014; 2(12): 1199–1208. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 32.  Vanpouille-Box C, Alard A, Aryankalayil MJ, et al.: DNA exonuclease Trex1 regulates radiotherapy-induced tumour immunogenicity. Nat. Commun. Jun 9 2017; 8: 15618. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 33.  Low JT, Chandramohan V, Bowie ML, et al.: Epigenetic STING silencing is developmentally conserved in gliomas and can be rescued by methyltransferase inhibition. Cancer Cell. May 9 2022; 40(5): 439–440. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 34.  Ager CR, Boda A, Rajapakshe K, et al.: High potency STING agonists engage unique myeloid pathways to reverse pancreatic cancer immune privilege. J. Immunother. Cancer. Aug 2021; 9(8): e003246. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 35.  Ager CR, Reilley MJ, Nicholas C, et al.: Intratumoral STING Activation with T-cell Checkpoint Modulation Generates Systemic Antitumor Immunity. Cancer Immunol. Res. Aug 2017; 5(8): 676–684. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 36.  Ager CR, Zhang H, Wei Z, et al.: Discovery of IACS-8803 and IACS-8779, potent agonists of stimulator of interferon genes (STING) with robust systemic antitumor efficacy. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. Oct 15 2019; 29(20): 126640. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 37.  Downey CM, Aghaei M, Schwendener RA, et al.: DMXAA causes tumor site-specific vascular disruption in murine non-small cell lung cancer, and like the endogenous non-canonical cyclic dinucleotide STING agonist, 2'3'-cGAMP, induces M2 macrophage repolarization. PLoS One. 2014; 9(6): e99988. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 38.  Boudreau CE, Najem H, Ott M, et al.: Intratumoral Delivery of STING Agonist Results in Clinical Responses in Canine Glioblastoma. Clin. Cancer Res. Oct 15 2021; 27(20): 5528–5535. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 39.  Sun L, Wu J, Du F, et al.: Cyclic GMP-AMP synthase is a cytosolic DNA sensor that activates the type I interferon pathway. Science. Feb 15 2013; 339(6121): 786–791. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 40.  Wu J, Sun L, Chen X, et al.: Cyclic GMP-AMP is an endogenous second messenger in innate immune signaling by cytosolic DNA. Science. Feb 15 2013; 339(6121): 826–830. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 41.  Gao P, Ascano M, Wu Y, et al.: Cyclic [G(2',5')pA(3',5')p] is the metazoan second messenger produced by DNA-activated cyclic GMP-AMP synthase. Cell. May 23 2013; 153(5): 1094–1107. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 42.  Ablasser A, Goldeck M, Cavlar T, et al.: cGAS produces a 2'-5'-linked cyclic dinucleotide second messenger that activates STING. Nature. Jun 20 2013; 498(7454): 380–384. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 43.  Diner EJ, Burdette DL, Wilson SC, et al.: The innate immune DNA sensor cGAS produces a noncanonical cyclic dinucleotide that activates human STING. Cell Rep. May 30 2013; 3(5): 1355–1361. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 44.  Lam KC, Araya RE, Huang A, et al.: Microbiota triggers STING-type I IFN-dependent monocyte reprogramming of the tumor microenvironment. Cell. Oct 14 2021; 184(21): 5338–5356.e21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 45.  Shevtsov M, Sato H, Multhoff G, et al.: Novel Approaches to Improve the Efficacy of Immuno-Radiotherapy. Front. Oncol. 2019; 9: 156. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 46.  Bakhoum SF, Cantley LC: The Multifaceted Role of Chromosomal Instability in Cancer and Its Microenvironment. Cell. Sep 6 2018; 174(6): 1347–1360. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 47.  Ho SS, Zhang WY, Tan NY, et al.: The DNA Structure-Specific Endonuclease MUS81 Mediates DNA Sensor STING-Dependent Host Rejection of Prostate Cancer Cells. Immunity. May 17 2016; 44(5): 1177–1189. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 48.  Hannes S, Karlowitz R, van Wijk SJL : The Smac mimetic BV6 cooperates with STING to induce necroptosis in apoptosis-resistant pancreatic carcinoma cells. Cell Death Dis. Aug 30 2021; 12(9): 816. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 49.  Lam AR, Bert NL, Ho SS, et al.: RAE1 ligands for the NKG2D receptor are regulated by STING-dependent DNA sensor pathways in lymphoma. Cancer Res. Apr 15 2014; 74(8): 2193–2203. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 50.  Li T, Chen ZJ: The cGAS-cGAMP-STING pathway connects DNA damage to inflammation, senescence, and cancer. J. Exp. Med. May 7 2018; 215(5): 1287–1299. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 51.  Prajapati K, Perez C, Rojas LBP, et al.: Functions of NKG2D in CD8(+) T cells: an opportunity for immunotherapy. Cell. Mol. Immunol. May 2018; 15(5): 470–479. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 52.  Zhang CX, Ye SB, Ni JJ, et al.: STING signaling remodels the tumor microenvironment by antagonizing myeloid-derived suppressor cell expansion. Cell Death Differ. Nov 2019; 26(11): 2314–2328. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 53.  Pei J, Zhang Y, Luo Q, et al.: STAT3 inhibition enhances CDN-induced STING signaling and antitumor immunity. Cancer Lett. May 28 2019; 450: 110–122. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 54.  Cheng H, Xu Q, Lu X, et al.: Activation of STING by cGAMP Regulates MDSCs to Suppress Tumor Metastasis via Reversing Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition. Front. Oncol. 2020; 10: 896. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 55.  Hayman TJ, Baro M, MacNeil T, et al.: STING enhances cell death through regulation of reactive oxygen species and DNA damage. Nat. Commun. Apr 19 2021; 12(1): 2327. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 56.  Takashima K, Takeda Y, Oshiumi H, et al.: STING in tumor and host cells cooperatively work for NK cell-mediated tumor growth retardation. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. Sep 30 2016; 478(4): 1764–1771. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 57.  Bielecki PA, Lorkowski ME, Becicka WM, et al.: Immunostimulatory silica nanoparticle boosts innate immunity in brain tumors. Nanoscale Horiz. Feb 1 2021; 6(2): 156–167. Publisher Full Text
  • 58.  Wang B, Tang M, Yuan Z, et al.: Targeted delivery of a STING agonist to brain tumors using bioengineered protein nanoparticles for enhanced immunotherapy. Bioact Mater. Oct 2022; 16: 232–248. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 59.  Shih AY, Damm-Ganamet KL, Mirzadegan T: Dynamic Structural Differences between Human and Mouse STING Lead to Differing Sensitivity to DMXAA. Biophys. J. Jan 9 2018; 114(1): 32–39. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 60.  Harrington KJ, Brody J, Ingham M, et al.: LBA15-Preliminary results of the first-in-human (FIH) study of MK-1454, an agonist of stimulator of interferon genes (STING), as monotherapy or in combination with pembrolizumab (pembro) in patients with advanced solid tumors or lymphomas. Ann. Oncol. 2018; 29(8): viii712. Publisher Full Text
  • 61.  Meric-Bernstam F, Sweis RF, Hodi FS, et al.: Phase I Dose-Escalation Trial of MIW815 (ADU-S100), an Intratumoral STING Agonist, in Patients with Advanced/Metastatic Solid Tumors or Lymphomas. Clin. Cancer Res. Feb 15 2022; 28(4): 677–688. Publisher Full Text
  • 62.  Liu FR, Jiang MJ, Mei Z, et al.: cGAS-STING signalings potentiate tumor progression via sustaining cancer stemness. Transl. Oncol. Mar 29 2022; 20: 101404. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 63.  Canadas I, Thummalapalli R, Kim JW, et al.: Tumor innate immunity primed by specific interferon-stimulated endogenous retroviruses. Nat. Med. Aug 2018; 24(8): 1143–1150. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 64.  Shae D, Becker KW, Christov P, et al.: Endosomolytic polymersomes increase the activity of cyclic dinucleotide STING agonists to enhance cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Nanotechnol. Mar 2019; 14(3): 269–278. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 65.  Koshy ST, Cheung AS, Gu L, et al.: Liposomal Delivery Enhances Immune Activation by STING Agonists for Cancer Immunotherapy. Adv. Biosyst. Feb 2017; 1(1-2). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 66.  Pan BS, Perera SA, Piesvaux JA, et al.: An orally available non-nucleotide STING agonist with antitumor activity. Science. Aug 21 2020; 369(6506). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 67.  Chin EN, Yu C, Vartabedian VF, et al.: Antitumor activity of a systemic STING-activating non-nucleotide cGAMP mimetic. Science. Aug 21 2020; 369(6506): 993–999. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 68.  Cavlar T, Deimling T, Ablasser A, et al.: Species-specific detection of the antiviral small-molecule compound CMA by STING. EMBO J. May 15 2013; 32(10): 1440–1450. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 69.  Yi G, Brendel VP, Shu C, et al.: Single nucleotide polymorphisms of human STING can affect innate immune response to cyclic dinucleotides. PLoS One. 2013; 8(10): e77846. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 70.  Decout A, Katz JD, Venkatraman S, et al.: The cGAS-STING pathway as a therapeutic target in inflammatory diseases. Nat. Rev. Immunol. Sep 2021; 21(9): 548–569. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 71.  Jin L, Xu LG, Yang IV, et al.: Identification and characterization of a loss-of-function human MPYS variant. Genes Immun. Jun 2011; 12(4): 263–269. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 72.  Patel S, Blaauboer SM, Tucker HR, et al.: The Common R71H-G230A-R293Q Human TMEM173 Is a Null Allele. J. Immunol. Jan 15 2017; 198(2): 776–787. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 73.  Ruiz-Moreno JS, Hamann L, Shah JA, et al.: The common HAQ STING variant impairs cGAS-dependent antibacterial responses and is associated with susceptibility to Legionnaires' disease in humans. PLoS Pathog. Jan 2018; 14(1): e1006829. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 74.  Wang J, Xiao Y, Loupakis F, et al.: Genetic variants involved in the cGAS-STING pathway to predict outcome in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Data from FIRE-3 and TRIBE trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021; 39(15_suppl): 3535–3535. Publisher Full Text
  • 75.  Banerjee D, Langberg K, Abbas S, et al.: A non-canonical, interferon-independent signaling activity of cGAMP triggers DNA damage response signaling. Nat. Commun. Oct 27 2021; 12(1): 6207. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 76.  Kerur N, Fukuda S, Banerjee D, et al.: cGAS drives noncanonical-inflammasome activation in age-related macular degeneration. Nat. Med. Jan 2018; 24(1): 50–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 77.  Hu S, Fang Y, Chen X, et al.: cGAS restricts colon cancer development by protecting intestinal barrier integrity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. Jun 8 2021; 118(23). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 78.  Konno H, Yamauchi S, Berglund A, et al.: Suppression of STING signaling through epigenetic silencing and missense mutation impedes DNA damage mediated cytokine production. Oncogene. Apr 2018; 37(15): 2037–2051. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 79.  Falahat R, Berglund A, Putney RM, et al.: Epigenetic reprogramming of tumor cell-intrinsic STING function sculpts antigenicity and T cell recognition of melanoma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. Apr 13 2021; 118(15). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 80.  Wu CS, Zhao Q, Zhang J, et al.: Methylation status of the stimulator of interferon genes promoter in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Medicine (Baltimore). Dec 2018; 97(52): e13904. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 81.  Lai J, Fu Y, Tian S, et al.: Zebularine elevates STING expression and enhances cGAMP cancer immunotherapy in mice. Mol. Ther. May 5 2021; 29(5): 1758–1771. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 82.  Krushkal J, Silvers T, Reinhold WC, et al.: Epigenome-wide DNA methylation analysis of small cell lung cancer cell lines suggests potential chemotherapy targets. Clin. Epigenetics. Jun 25 2020; 12(1): 93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 83.  Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Xu J, et al.: CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2009-2013. Neuro-Oncology. Oct 1 2016; 18(suppl_5): v1–v75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 84.  Klein SL, Flanagan KL: Sex differences in immune responses. Nat. Rev. Immunol. Oct 2016; 16(10): 626–638. Publisher Full Text
  • 85.  Gal-Oz ST, Maier B, Yoshida H, et al.: ImmGen report: sexual dimorphism in the immune system transcriptome. Nat. Commun. Sep 20 2019; 10(1): 4295. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 86.  Bayik D, Zhou Y, Park C, et al.: Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cell Subsets Drive Glioblastoma Growth in a Sex-Specific Manner. Cancer Discov. Aug 2020; 10(8): 1210–1225. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 87.  Liang H, Deng L, Hou Y, et al.: Host STING-dependent MDSC mobilization drives extrinsic radiation resistance. Nat. Commun. Nov 23 2017; 8(1): 1736. Publisher Full Text
  • 88.  Grassadonia A, Sperduti I, Vici P, et al.: Effect of Gender on the Outcome of Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Phase III Randomized Clinical Trials. J. Clin. Med. Dec 12 2018; 7(12). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 89.  Smyth MJ, Ngiow SF, Ribas A, et al.: Combination cancer immunotherapies tailored to the tumour microenvironment. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. Mar 2016; 13(3): 143–158. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 90.  Wang Q, Hu B, Hu X, et al.: Tumor Evolution of Glioma-Intrinsic Gene Expression Subtypes Associates with Immunological Changes in the Microenvironment. Cancer Cell. Jul 10 2017; 32(1): 42–56.e6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 91.  Yao H, Wang H, Li C, et al.: Cancer Cell-Intrinsic PD-1 and Implications in Combinatorial Immunotherapy. Front. Immunol. 2018; 9: 1774. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 92.  Ott M, Tomaszowski KH, Marisetty A, et al.: Profiling of patients with glioma reveals the dominant immunosuppressive axis is refractory to immune function restoration. JCI Insight. Sep 3 2020; 5(17). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 93.  Woroniecka K, Chongsathidkiet P, Rhodin K, et al.: T-Cell Exhaustion Signatures Vary with Tumor Type and Are Severe in Glioblastoma. Clin. Cancer Res. Sep 1 2018; 24(17): 4175–4186. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 94.  Chongsathidkiet P, Jackson C, Koyama S, et al.: Sequestration of T cells in bone marrow in the setting of glioblastoma and other intracranial tumors. Nat. Med. Sep 2018; 24(9): 1459–1468. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 95.  de Queiroz N , Xia T, Konno H, et al.: Ovarian Cancer Cells Commonly Exhibit Defective STING Signaling Which Affects Sensitivity to Viral Oncolysis. Mol. Cancer Res. Apr 2019; 17(4): 974–986. Publisher Full Text
  • 96.  Xia T, Konno H, Ahn J, et al.: Deregulation of STING Signaling in Colorectal Carcinoma Constrains DNA Damage Responses and Correlates With Tumorigenesis. Cell Rep. Jan 12 2016; 14(2): 282–297. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 97.  Xia T, Konno H, Barber GN: Recurrent Loss of STING Signaling in Melanoma Correlates with Susceptibility to Viral Oncolysis. Cancer Res. Nov 15 2016; 76(22): 6747–6759. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 98.  Ng KW, Marshall EA, Bell JC, et al.: cGAS-STING and Cancer: Dichotomous Roles in Tumor Immunity and Development. Trends Immunol. Jan 2018; 39(1): 44–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 99.  Nomura M, Saito K, Aihara K, et al.: DNA demethylation is associated with malignant progression of lower-grade gliomas. Sci. Rep. Feb 13 2019; 9(1): 1903. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 100.  Turcan S, Rohle D, Goenka A, et al.: IDH1 mutation is sufficient to establish the glioma hypermethylator phenotype. Nature. Feb 15 2012; 483(7390): 479–483. Publisher Full Text
  • 101.  Goedegebuure RSA, Kleibeuker EA, Buffa FM, et al.: Interferon- and STING-independent induction of type I interferon stimulated genes during fractionated irradiation. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. May 8 2021; 40(1): 161. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 102.  Zaidi AH, Kelly RJ, Gorbunova A, et al.: Intratumoral immunotherapy with STING agonist, ADU-S100, induces CD8+ T-cell mediated anti-tumor immunity in an esophageal adenocarcinoma model. Oncotarget. Feb 16 2021; 12(4): 292–303. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 103.  Liu Y, Crowe WN, Wang L, et al.: An inhalable nanoparticulate STING agonist synergizes with radiotherapy to confer long-term control of lung metastases. Nat. Commun. Nov 8 2019; 10(1): 5108. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 104.  Weber R, Groth C, Lasser S, et al.: IL-6 as a major regulator of MDSC activity and possible target for cancer immunotherapy. Cell. Immunol. Jan 2021; 359: 104254. Publisher Full Text
  • 105.  Suter MA, Tan NY, Thiam CH, et al.: cGAS-STING cytosolic DNA sensing pathway is suppressed by JAK2-STAT3 in tumor cells. Sci. Rep. Mar 31 2021; 11(1): 7243. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 106.  Zheng B, Yu Y, Pan Z, et al.: HBsAg Dampened STING Associated Activation of NK Cells in HBeAg-Negative CHB Patients. Int. J. Mol. Sci. Jul 16 2021; 22(14). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 107.  Madani AY, Majeed Y, Abdesselem HB, et al.: Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription 3 (STAT3) Suppresses STAT1/Interferon Signaling Pathway and Inflammation in Senescent Preadipocytes. Antioxidants (Basel). Feb 23 2021; 10(2). Publisher Full Text
  • 108.  Hsia HC, Hutti JE, Baldwin AS: Cytosolic DNA Promotes Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription 3 (STAT3) Phosphorylation by TANK-binding Kinase 1 (TBK1) to Restrain STAT3 Activity. J. Biol. Chem. Mar 31 2017; 292(13): 5405–5417. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 109.  Tolomeo M, Cascio A: The Multifaced Role of STAT3 in Cancer and Its Implication for Anticancer Therapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. Jan 9 2021; 22(2). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 110.  Ott M, Kassab C, Marisetty A, et al.: Radiation with STAT3 Blockade Triggers Dendritic Cell-T cell Interactions in the Glioma Microenvironment and Therapeutic Efficacy. Clin. Cancer Res. Sep 15 2020; 26(18): 4983–4994. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 111.  Kadiyala P, Gregory JV, Lowenstein PR, et al.: Targeting gliomas with STAT3-silencing nanoparticles. Mol. Cell. Oncol. Jan 31 2021; 8(2): 1870647. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 112.  Gregory JV, Kadiyala P, Doherty R, et al.: Systemic brain tumor delivery of synthetic protein nanoparticles for glioblastoma therapy. Nat. Commun. Nov 10 2020; 11(1): 5687. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 113.  Gadkaree SK, Fu J, Sen R, et al.: Induction of tumor regression by intratumoral STING agonists combined with anti-programmed death-L1 blocking antibody in a preclinical squamous cell carcinoma model. Head Neck. Jun 2017; 39(6): 1086–1094. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 114.  Moore E, Clavijo PE, Davis R, et al.: Established T Cell-Inflamed Tumors Rejected after Adaptive Resistance Was Reversed by Combination STING Activation and PD-1 Pathway Blockade. Cancer Immunol. Res. Dec 2016; 4(12): 1061–1071. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 115.  Rao G, Latha K, Ott M, et al.: Anti-PD-1 Induces M1 Polarization in the Glioma Microenvironment and Exerts Therapeutic Efficacy in the Absence of CD8 Cytotoxic T Cells. Clin. Cancer Res. Sep 1 2020; 26(17): 4699–4712. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 116.  Fu J, Kanne DB, Leong M, et al.: STING agonist formulated cancer vaccines can cure established tumors resistant to PD-1 blockade. Sci. Transl. Med. Apr 15 2015; 7(283): 283ra52ra52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 117.  Dorta-Estremera S, Hegde VL, Slay RB, et al.: Targeting interferon signaling and CTLA-4 enhance the therapeutic efficacy of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in preclinical model of HPV(+) oral cancer. J. Immunother. Cancer. Sep 18 2019; 7(1): 252. Publisher Full Text
  • 118.  Mender I, Zhang A, Ren Z, et al.: Telomere Stress Potentiates STING-Dependent Anti-tumor Immunity. Cancer Cell. Sep 14 2020; 38(3): 400–411.e6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 119.  Shi J, Liu C, Luo S, et al.: STING agonist and IDO inhibitor combination therapy inhibits tumor progression in murine models of colorectal cancer. Cell. Immunol. Aug 2021; 366: 104384. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 07 Sep 2022
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Article Versions (1)
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
 - -
Citations
SEE MORE DETAILS
CITE
how to cite this article
Tripathi S, Najem H, Mahajan AS et al. cGAS-STING pathway targeted therapies and their applications in the treatment of high-grade glioma [version 1; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 11:1010 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125163.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 07 Sep 2022
Views
11
Cite
Reviewer Report 25 Oct 2022
Maria G. Castro, Department of Neurosurgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA;  Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA 
Approved
VIEWS 11
https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.137441.r151690
This review article by Tripathi et al. covers cGAS-STING pathway targeted therapies for glioma therapeutics. The review is topical, of broad interest and it is well-balanced and comprehensive. This review article will be of interest to the F1000Research readership.

... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Castro MG. Reviewer Report For: cGAS-STING pathway targeted therapies and their applications in the treatment of high-grade glioma [version 1; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 11:1010 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.137441.r151690)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1010/v1#referee-response-151690
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Report a concern
Views
8
Cite
Reviewer Report 25 Oct 2022
Edjah K. Nduom, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA 
Approved
VIEWS 8
https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.137441.r149734
Drs. Tripathi and all have written an extensive review detailing the rationale for the use of therapies targeting the cGAS-STING pathway in the treatment of high-grade glioma. The review is written quite well and it is not overly reliant upon ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Nduom EK. Reviewer Report For: cGAS-STING pathway targeted therapies and their applications in the treatment of high-grade glioma [version 1; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 11:1010 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.137441.r149734)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1010/v1#referee-response-149734
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Report a concern
Views
23
Cite
Reviewer Report 20 Sep 2022
Marcin Kortylewski, Department of Immunology, Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA 
Approved
VIEWS 23
https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.137441.r149732
This is a relatively concise but comprehensive overview of therapies targeting the cGAS/STING pathway with a specific focus on the treatment of malignant glioma. The authors are leading experts in this field with prior experience in preclinical and canine studies ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Kortylewski M. Reviewer Report For: cGAS-STING pathway targeted therapies and their applications in the treatment of high-grade glioma [version 1; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 11:1010 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.137441.r149732)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1010/v1#referee-response-149732
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 07 Sep 2022
Comment

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved
The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved
Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Reviewer Reports

Invited Reviewers
1 2 3
Version 1
07 Sep 22 		read read read
  1. Marcin Kortylewski, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, USA
  2. Edjah K. Nduom, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, USA
  3. Maria G. Castro, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, USA; University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, USA

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment
Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

    keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports
    keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports
    keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports
    Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
    Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
    Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
    Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
    Sign In
    If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

    The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
    Email address not valid, please try again

    You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

    To sign in, please click here.

    If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

    You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

    To sign in, please click here.

    If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

    Code not correct, please try again
    Email us for further assistance.
    Server error, please try again.