You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic. For video creation, please contact our Academic Video Service.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 João Paulo Figueiró Longo -- 3311 2022-08-30 08:31:59 |
2 format Jason Zhu -25 word(s) 3286 2022-08-31 03:54:52 | |
3 format Jason Zhu Meta information modification 3286 2022-09-02 08:41:41 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Academic Video Service to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Rodrigues, M.C.;  Morais, J.A.V.;  Ganassin, R.;  Oliveira, G.R.T.;  Costa, F.C.;  Morais, A.A.C.;  Silveira, A.P.;  Silva, V.C.M.;  Longo, J.P.F.;  Muehlmann, L.A. Immunogenic Cell Death in Cancer Biology and Therapy. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/26655 (accessed on 25 December 2025).
Rodrigues MC,  Morais JAV,  Ganassin R,  Oliveira GRT,  Costa FC,  Morais AAC, et al. Immunogenic Cell Death in Cancer Biology and Therapy. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/26655. Accessed December 25, 2025.
Rodrigues, Mosar Corrêa, José Athayde Vasconcelos Morais, Rayane Ganassin, Giulia Rosa Tavares Oliveira, Fabiana Chagas Costa, Amanda Alencar Cabral Morais, Ariane Pandolfo Silveira, Victor Carlos Mello Silva, João Paulo Figueiró Longo, Luis Alexandre Muehlmann. "Immunogenic Cell Death in Cancer Biology and Therapy" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/26655 (accessed December 25, 2025).
Rodrigues, M.C.,  Morais, J.A.V.,  Ganassin, R.,  Oliveira, G.R.T.,  Costa, F.C.,  Morais, A.A.C.,  Silveira, A.P.,  Silva, V.C.M.,  Longo, J.P.F., & Muehlmann, L.A. (2022, August 30). Immunogenic Cell Death in Cancer Biology and Therapy. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/26655
Rodrigues, Mosar Corrêa, et al. "Immunogenic Cell Death in Cancer Biology and Therapy." Encyclopedia. Web. 30 August, 2022.
Immunogenic Cell Death in Cancer Biology and Therapy
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/pharmaceutics14081564

Immunogenic cell death (ICD) is a modality of regulated cell death that is sufficient to promote an adaptive immune response against antigens of the dying cell in an immunocompetent host. An important characteristic of ICD is the release and exposure of damage-associated molecular patterns, which are potent endogenous immune adjuvants. As the induction of ICD can be achieved with conventional cytotoxic agents, it represents a potential approach for the immunotherapy of cancer.

DAMPs immune system chemotherapy photodynamic therapy

1. Introduction

Both the innate and the adaptive branches of the immune system are involved in the elimination of malignant cells. Generally, for the successful elimination of tumors by immunity, the in situ presence of immunoadjuvants and antigens, as well as a non-immunosuppressor tumor microenvironment, are essential.
Tumor cells commonly express neoantigens, which are different from any other normal protein in the host, or tumor-associated antigens, which are expressed in an unusual tissue or in aberrantly high amounts [1][2]. As a result, one important feature of cancers is their ability to escape immunity, as the immune system is crucially involved in the defense against the development and progression of malignant cells [3].

2. Immunogenic Cell Death

As defined by the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death, ICD is a modality of RCD [4][5]. This implies that ICD activation depends on signaling transduction programs, and can thus be triggered or modulated by drugs and genetic components [4].
ICD differs from other RCD types, such as necroptosis, ferroptosis and pyroptosis, not only by the conditions under which it is triggered, but also by the fact that it activates an adaptive immune response in immunocompetent syngeneic hosts against antigens expressed by the dying cell [4]. The cells undergoing ICD exhibit morphological and molecular hallmarks of apoptosis with a well-defined pattern of release and exposure of DAMPs [5]. Thus, cells at ICD exhibit the two conditions necessary for eliciting an adaptive immune response: antigenicity and adjuvanticity [4][5].
DAMPs form a group of different molecules that normally perform structural and metabolic functions in living cells unrelated to their immune functions during ICD [6]. However, when emitted with a specific temporospatial profile during ICD, DAMPs are able to trigger or boost antigen-specific immune responses [7][8]. The activation of pattern recognition receptors (PRR) by DAMPs results in the maturation of dendritic cells (DCs) and the activation of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells [9]. Different aspects of the activation of adaptive immune responses are fulfilled by the different DAMPs involved in ICD.
The time profile of the release and exposure, as well as the specific actions performed by the DAMPs, orchestrates the attraction, phagocytic activity and maturation of APCs in the tumor bed. The simple presence of a single DAMP or just a couple of them in the vicinity of tumor cells is generally not enough for the initiation or boosting of a cytotoxic, effective anticancer immune response. The absence of calreticulin or ANXA1, for example, is known to severely limit immune responses against tumor cells [10][11][12]. Moreover, the tumor microenvironment must permit immune cells to be activated and to perform their roles properly in order for DAMPs to exert their immunoadjuvant effects.
Specific conditions are known to induce ICD, such as chemotherapy [13][14][15], radiotherapy [16][17] and PDT [18][19][20][21][22][23]. Parameters such as the protocol of application and the drug used in these treatments are crucial to determine whether ICD is induced or not. In the case of chemotherapy, for instance, ICD can be induced by drugs such as mitoxantrone, oxaliplatin and cyclophosphamide, but not by cisplatin, etoposide and mitomycin C. In the case of PDT, the type and concentration of the photosensitizer, as well as the irradiation regimen, are key factors [18][19].

3. Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress

Different ICD-inducers act as stressors of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) of target cells [7][9][24]. Indeed, the ER has been linked by many studies to programmed cell death [24][25][26]. Stressing conditions, such as oxidative stress and hyperthermia, can impair the folding of proteins. Unfolded proteins bind the luminal ER chaperone GRP78/BiP, triggering the activation of three ER transmembrane proteins: inositol-requiring enzyme 1α (IRE1α), protein kinase RNA-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK), and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6). The downstream cellular events following the activation of these ER sensors can either restore normal ER metabolism or induce cell death [26].
The activated IRE1α dimerizes and is autophosphorylated, becoming able to catalyze the unconventional, cytosolic splicing of the mRNA for the transcription factor X box-binding protein 1 (uXBP1) to sXBP1, which is then translated. The XBP1 is a key protein in UPR, activating the transcription of different genes that can reinstate normal ER metabolism [27]. The PERK protein also dimerizes and auto-phosphorylates, activating its kinase domain to phosphorylate the eukaryotic initiation factor 2α (eIF2α) [28][29]. The phosphorylation of eIF2α is the key event in the integrated stress response (ISR), which is a part of the ER stress response, and is common to ICD induced by different cytotoxicants [10]. Thus, the presence of phosphorylated eIF2α is a hallmark of ICD and can be used as a biomarker of ISR in cell cultures and in biological samples [30].
Phosphorylated elF2α triggers the selective translation of the activating transcription factor (AFT4), which activates the expression of genes involved in protein folding, amino acid metabolism and regulation of oxidative stress [31]. Also, ATF6 is translocated to the Golgi apparatus, where it is then cleaved to ATF6N, releasing its transcription factor moiety that activates the transcription of genes for chaperones, XBP1, C/enhancer binding protein-homologous protein (CHOP), and others [26][32].
The UPR is important for cells under stress to survive and restore homeostasis. The activation of this response is often observed in cancer cells, as the tumor is often a stressing environment, with acidic pH and hypoxia, for instance. Thus, the phosphorylation of eIF2α is frequently observed in cancer cells and plays an important role in tumor growth, invasion, and angiogenesis [33]. In this situation, tumors can cope with the constant stress and progress.
However, if the UPR is unable to restore the ER protein folding capacity, then cell death is triggered. In this context, the pro-apoptotic factor CHOP plays a key role [33][34][35]. The PERK/eIF2α/ATF4 pathway activates the production of CHOP [31], which activates the expression of the BH3-only protein Bim. This leads to the activation of Bax/Bak and the release of cytochrome C to the cytosol, with the consequent induction of apoptosis [34][36].

4. ICD and DAMPs in Cancer Therapy

The literature on ICD in cancer biology has been significantly expanded over the last years, providing new possibilities for cancer treatment. Firstly, the discovery that ICD can be induced by certain classical anticancer agents has made it clear that some treatment regimens should be designed not only to directly eliminate tumor cells, but also to optimize their capacity to induce immune responses against tumor antigens. Secondly, ICD inducers can be used in combination with immunotherapeutics, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Recently, Ganassin et al. (2022) demonstrated that curcumin, a polyphenol obtained from turmeric, causes ER stress and ICD in colorectal adenocarcinoma CT26 cells. The researchers observed that, when treated with curcumin, these cells exhibited an initial increase of intracellular Ca2+, which was followed by the activation of XBP1, a protein involved in the UPR response. The ER stress initiated by curcumin was accompanied by the induction of ICD.
Regarding chemotherapeutics, different drugs have been found to induce ICD in preclinical studies [12]. Moreover, chemotherapeutics such as doxorubicin, mitoxantrone, idarubicin, cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and oxaliplatin have already been clinically tested as ICD inducers, mainly in combination with immunotherapeutics [15]. For instance, the combination of doxorubicin, an ICD inducer, with the PD-1-targeting immune-checkpoint blocker, nivolumab, resulted in 35% objective response rates (ORRs) in the treatment of metastatic triple negative breast cancer patients [15][37]. When nivolumab was combined with cisplatin, a non-ICD inducer chemotherapeutic, ORRs were lower (23%) [37]. A number of other clinical studies are already under way to test this immunostimulatory combination using not only immune-checkpoint blockers, but also CAR-T cells, DC-based vaccines, immunostimulatory cytokines, and others [15].
Interesting results of the Phase II study published by Bota et al. (2018) also show that ICD-inducers can improve clinical outcomes in glioblastoma (WHO grade IV astrocytic glioma) immunotherapy [38]. The researchers used an allogeneic/autologous therapeutic glioblastoma vaccine (ERC1671, Gliovac), which is a mixture of inactivated tumor cells and lysates of tumor cells derived from the treated patient and three other glioblastoma patients, combined with recombinant colony stimulating factor 2 (CSF2, best known as GM-CSF, used to activate immune responses). The patients received a short regimen of low-dose cyclophosphamide (50 mg/day for 4 days) prior to vaccination. Cyclophosphamide is an ICD-inducer, used in this case, for relaxing the immunosuppressive environment. Indeed, low-dose cyclophosphamide has been reported to suppress Treg cell response, helping to promote DC expansion and antitumor cytotoxic T cell-mediated response [39]. The protocol of treatment described by Bota et al. (2018) also included the treatment of these glioblastoma patients with bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody specific to VEGF. The results showed increased survival for the patients thus treated (12 months vs. 7.5 months for patients receiving bevacizumab only). Although the researchers did not discuss the occasional contribution of ICD to the outcomes, the benefit observed with this protocol makes it worth investigating the possible contribution of ICD in preclinical and clinical models, which could help to improve this combinatory therapy in the future.
Radiotherapy has been shown to induce ICD as well. In clinical practice, radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy were shown to induce the exposure of the ICD-related DAMPs calreticulin, HSP70 and HMGB1 when applied either as a pre- or post-operative protocol of different cancers [40]. The results, however, are still contradictory. A possible cause for this can be the different experimental settings used and insufficient data regarding ICD hallmarks.
Lämmer et al. (2019) investigated the expression of cytosolic HSP70 in tumor tissue of 60 patients diagnosed with primary glioblastoma. As discussed before, HSP70 is released during ICD, acting as a DAMP. The tumors were surgically resected and patients were then treated with radiotherapy and temozolomide chemotherapy. The progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly longer in patients exhibiting a higher expression of cytosolic HSP70. The researchers hypothesized that this result may be due to the induction of ICD by the combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy given to patients.
Rothammer et al. (2019) analyzed the concentration of HSP70 in the serum of 40 breast cancer patients, who received breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy [41]. Patients with higher serum concentrations of HSP70 had an increased probability of developing contralateral recurrence or metastases within two years of receiving radiotherapy.
Protocols based on the combination of radiotherapy and immunotherapeutics have also been tested, and it remains unclear if patients benefit from radiotherapy-induced ICD, as the clinical data are contradictory. For instance, in the treatment of rectal cancer, the increase in HMGB1 was associated both with poorer [42] and with better [43] responses to chemoradiotherapy.
Hongo et al. (2015) studied 75 patients with lower rectal cancer who were treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy, consisting of radiotherapy (1.8 Gy × 28 fractions) and chemotherapy with a 5-fluorouracil (FU) prodrug (300 mg/m2/day) and leucovorin (75 mg/day). After chemoradiotherapy, tumors were surgically resected and analyzed for their expression of HMGB1. The patients with a higher expression of HMGB1 had a poorer response to chemoradiotherapy [42]. In the study by Huang et al. (2018), the presence of HMGB-1 in the cytosol, resulting from its translocation from the nucleus, was analyzed in the samples of locally advanced rectal cancer from 89 patients. The researchers reported that patients whose cancer exhibited cytosolic HMGB-1 before neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy had a better clinical outcome.
PDT has also been shown to induce ICD. This therapy is based on the pre-treatment of target cells with a photosensitizer, which is next photoactivated to generate reactive species and cause oxidative stress in situ [44]. As a consequence of the photoreactions thus induced, reactive species are produced, which can overwhelm the antioxidant defenses of the cell, generating oxidative stress and cell death [18]. This approach has been shown to induce ICD in specific conditions. The type and concentration of the photosensitizer [19][45], as well as the light dose [18], can significantly affect its ICD-inducing capacity. Moreover, oxygen supply in the target tissue can also affect PDT outcomes.
Doix et al. (2019) reported that the combination of a therapeutical vaccine based on DCs stimulated with PDT-killed cells and radiotherapy can delay the development of experimental squamous cell carcinoma in mice. Firstly, the researchers showed that the non-porphyrinic photosensitizer OR141, at low doses, induced ICD in SCC7 squamous cell carcinoma cells in vitro. These PDT-killed SCC7 cells were then used to prime and stimulate the maturation of DCs in vitro, which were then employed as a therapeutic vaccine against xenografts of SCC7 cells developed in the flank of C3H mice. This DC vaccine was subcutaneously injected three times at one-week intervals near the tumor-draining lymph node. One week later, radiotherapy mediated by a Cesium-137 γ-ray irradiator was applied onto the tumors. Occasionally, a fourth injection of the DC vaccine was performed at the time of radiotherapy application (peri-radiotherapy). It was observed that the tumor growth was delayed only when the DC vaccine was applied during the peri-radiotherapy period.
Rodrigues et al. (2022) showed that PDT using the photosensitizer aluminum-phthalocyanine mainly induced necrosis at the highest photosensitizer concentration and light dose, while milder protocols of PDT were able to efficiently induce ICD in both colorectal CT26 and mammary 4T1 murine adenocarcinoma cells [18]. In vitro, the milder PDT protocol consisted of 12.2 nM aluminum-phthalocyanine for colorectal adenocarcinoma CT26 cells and 9.0 nM aluminum-phthalocyanine for breast adenocarcinoma 4T1 cells, both irradiated with 25 J/cm2 red light dose. The exposure or release of calreticulin, HSP70, HSP90 and HMGB-1 close to that promoted by this PDT protocol was comparable to that observed with mitoxantrone treatment. Increasing the photosensitizer concentration and light dose resulted in a reduction on the release of these DAMPs. This shows that the PDT regimen has to be fine-tuned to induce ICD.
As commented previously, there are several ICD inducers described in the literature. Among them are classical approaches, such as chemotherapy, PDT and radiotherapy. These classical therapies are usually aimed at tumor destruction, mainly by inducing direct cytotoxicity to target tumor cells, regardless of the death mechanism underlying this effect. This cytotoxicity induced in a noncontrolled fashion can fail to trigger immune activation. Immune-targeted cytotoxic cancer treatments have to thus be designed to induce ICD, representing an adaptation in former protocols in order to increase the immunogenicity of cancer treatments.
Several ICD inducers are used in well-recognized therapies. Thus, the translation of this knowledge to clinical protocols can be easier if compared to the implementation of new anticancer drugs which are currently under development. As previously discussed, the literature shows evidence of abscopal effects in radiotherapy and PDT protocols, for example, that could be due to ICD. However, due to the complexity of cancer cells and tumor tissues, it is probable that personalized approaches are necessary to the successful use of immune-activating strategies in the clinic. Another barrier to the development of clinical protocols for ICD induction is the lack of standardization in ICD studies. Thus, the use of widely recognized, bona-fide parameters that demonstrate that an immunogenic response is being induced is essential for translating research into clinical protocols [46]. This can be supported by guidelines proposed in the literature [5].

5. Delivery of DAMPs and ICD-Inducers to Tumor Tissues

As commented previously, ICD is triggered by the combined release of a specific set-up of DAMPs that includes calreticulin, HMGB-1, and ATP, among others. These molecules are exposed to the external cell membrane, and/or released to the external media in dying cells. All of these events are part of a cyclic process which is finely regulated during this specific sub-type of apoptosis. In terms of cell biology, as previously mentioned, several therapeutic procedures can trigger this event and have been investigated in both pre-clinical and clinical applications [47].
However, due to the variety of these different types of stimuli, the exposure or release of DAMPs can vary among the therapeutic strategies. Moreover, it is possible that, for clinical applications, the control of DAMPs exposure and release can be different among patients and tumor stages due to internal sub-tumoral tissue organizations and the different phenotypes of cancer cells. This situation makes the clinical translation difficult, delaying this therapy for patients.
Alternatively, some researchers proposed the use of gene therapy to deliver DNA sequences that could increase DAMPs expression in target tumor cells. The rationale for this strategy is supported by the fact that some tumor types have a reduced expression of DAMPs, such as calreticulin. For instance, Garg et al. (2015) described a pre-clinical tumor model that reduces the constitutive calreticulin expression, thus reducing the effectiveness of immunogenic protocols [43]. The researchers defined this tumor model as resistant to immunization against cancer cells. In terms of microevolution, it makes sense, as calreticulin is a molecule that activates tumor cell phagocytosis by APC. In this situation, selected tumor clones could reduce the expression of DAMPs, thus impairing ICD activation.
Due to the challenge of tumor targeting, nanoparticles or nanocarriers could be used to concentrate ICD inducers and DAMP molecules close to tumor tissues [18][19][48]. This is the classical argument for using nanotechnology for tumor therapy. Within this approach, nanocarriers are passively or actively delivered to the tumor regions and release the carried ICD activators to induce cell death and initiate the immune recognition and then the immune surveillance against malignant cells. This approach is somewhat different from the direct delivery of DAMPS to tumor tissues, but has been used successfully [48].
In the ICD approach widely proposed in the literature, conventional drugs, such as doxorubicin or mitoxantrone, for example, will lead tumor cells to succumb to ICD and release DAMPS. The preclinical results are promising; however, there are some concerns about the translation possibilities for this strategy, especially for the passive delivery of nanocarriers for tumor tissues. The main problems are the structural differences between preclinical induced tumor tissues and natural tumors that are developed in clinical conditions. The argument is that passive targeting is not reproduced in clinical conditions. Despite all this discussion, there is some evidence that, at least in part, nanocarriers can increase the delivery of drugs and immunoadjuvant molecules to tumor tissues.
In the work by Zhou et al. (2022), murine melanoma (B16F10) cells were subjected to different treatments, such as hypoxia, cisplatin, radiotherapy, photodynamic therapy, and hypochlorous acid (HOCl). The cell-delivered secretions (CDS) of melanoma cells treated with HOCl activated dendritic cells and macrophages and produced the best antitumor immune response when compared to the other treatments. Aiming to increase the effectiveness of the treatment, the HOCl-CDS produced in vitro was then associated to nanofibers of a scaffold hydrogel containing melittin and RADA24 peptides. This nanosystem was then injected into the subcutaneous melanoma in vivo (C57BL/6 mice). The results indicated that the obtained hydrogel induced cell death, cytotoxicity in T lymphocytes, and increased the antitumor effect of the immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Another example of a successful use of nanocarriers for increasing the immunogenicity of tumors was published by Sethuraman et al. (2020) [44]. The researchers describe a liposome nanocarrier with a DNA plasmid encoding calreticulin. They observed that this strategy increased the expression of calreticulin in target tumor cells, reducing tumor growth due to immune activation. Interestingly, when they combined this liposomal formulation with the application of focused ultrasound treatment, the results were better. This improvement is probably related to the temperature increase provided by the ultrasound. In higher temperatures, some amount of cell death could be triggered, which in combination with calreticulin superexpression could increase the immune activation.
The researchers did not evaluate the modality of cell death induced by the treatment. However, it shows the potential of DAMPs delivery for immune system activation. As a potent phagocytosis inducer, calreticulin is a key factor for alternative types of immune activation. As noted previously, this protein was included as a molecular signature for the ICD, but its presence in external spaces may also promote tumor recognition by APC, thus contributing to immunological surveillance [45].

References

  1. Yamamoto, T.N.; Kishton, R.J.; Restifo, N.P. Developing neoantigen-targeted T cell–based treatments for solid tumors. Nat. Med. 2019, 25, 1488–1499.
  2. Weinberg, R.A. The Biology of Cancer, 2nd ed.; Garland Science, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
  3. Galluzzi, L.; Vitale, I.; Aaronson, S.A.; Abrams, J.M.; Adam, D.; Agostinis, P.; Alnemri, E.S.; Altucci, L.; Amelio, I.; Andrews, D.W.; et al. Molecular mechanisms of cell death: Recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018. Cell Death Differ. 2018, 25, 486–541.
  4. Galluzzi, L.; Vitale, I.; Warren, S.; Adjemian, S.; Agostinis, P.; Martinez, A.B.; Chan, T.A.; Coukos, G.; Demaria, S.; Deutsch, E.; et al. Consensus guidelines for the definition, detection and interpretation of immunogenic cell death. J. Immunother. Cancer 2020, 8, e000337.
  5. Minton, K. DAMP-driven metabolic adaptation. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2019, 20, 1.
  6. Collett, G.P.; Redman, C.W.; Sargent, I.L.; Vatish, M. Endoplasmic reticulum stress stimulates the release of extracellular vesicles carrying danger-associated molecular pattern (DAMP) molecules. Oncotarget 2018, 9, 6707–6717.
  7. Gong, T.; Liu, L.; Jiang, W.; Zhou, R. DAMP-sensing receptors in sterile inflammation and inflammatory diseases. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2019, 20, 95–112.
  8. Serrano-del Valle, A.; Anel, A.; Naval, J.; Marzo, I. Immunogenic cell death and immunotherapy of multiple myeloma. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2019, 7, 50.
  9. Kroemer, G.; Galassi, C.; Zitvogel, L.; Galluzzi, L. Immunogenic cell stress and death. Nat. Immunol. 2022, 23, 487–500.
  10. Baracco, E.E.; Stoll, G.; Van Endert, P.; Zitvogel, L.; Vacchelli, E.; Kroemer, G. Contribution of annexin A1 to anticancer immunosurveillance. OncoImmunology 2019, 8, e1647760.
  11. Obeid, M.; Tesniere, A.; Ghiringhelli, F.; Fimia, G.M.; Apetoh, L.; Perfettini, J.-L.; Castedo, M.; Mignot, G.; Panaretakis, T.; Casares, N.; et al. Calreticulin exposure dictates the immunogenicity of cancer cell death. Nat. Med. 2006, 13, 54–61.
  12. Chattopadhyay, S.; Liu, Y.-H.; Fang, Z.-S.; Lin, C.-L.; Lin, J.-C.; Yao, B.-Y.; Hu, C.-M.J. Synthetic Immunogenic Cell Death Mediated by Intracellular Delivery of STING Agonist Nanoshells Enhances Anticancer Chemo-immunotherapy. Nano Lett. 2020, 20, 2246–2256.
  13. Jafari, S.; Lavasanifar, A.; Hejazi, M.S.; Maleki-Dizaji, N.; Mesgari, M.; Molavi, O. STAT3 inhibitory stattic enhances immunogenic cell death induced by chemotherapy in cancer cells. DARU J. Pharm. Sci. 2020, 28, 159–169.
  14. Vanmeerbeek, I.; Sprooten, J.; De Ruysscher, D.; Tejpar, S.; Vandenberghe, P.; Fucikova, J.; Spisek, R.; Zitvogel, L.; Kroemer, G.; Galluzzi, L.; et al. Trial watch: Chemotherapy-induced immunogenic cell death in immuno-oncology. OncoImmunology 2020, 9, 1703449.
  15. Doix, B.; Trempolec, N.; Riant, O.; Feron, O. Low Photosensitizer Dose and Early Radiotherapy Enhance Antitumor Immune Response of Photodynamic Therapy-Based Dendritic Cell Vaccination. Front. Oncol. 2019, 9, 811.
  16. Rapoport, B.L.; Anderson, R. Realizing the Clinical Potential of Immunogenic Cell Death in Cancer Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 959.
  17. Rodrigues, M.C.; Júnior, W.T.D.S.; Mundim, T.; Vale, C.L.C.; de Oliveira, J.V.; Ganassin, R.; Pacheco, T.J.A.; Morais, J.A.V.; Longo, J.P.F.; Azevedo, R.B.; et al. Induction of Immunogenic Cell Death by Photodynamic Therapy Mediated by Aluminum-Phthalocyanine in Nanoemulsion. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 196.
  18. Morais, J.A.V.; Almeida, L.R.; Rodrigues, M.C.; Azevedo, R.B.; Muehlmann, L.A. The induction of immunogenic cell death by photodynamic therapy in B16F10 cells in vitro is effected by the concentration of the photosensitizer. Photodiagn. Photodyn. Ther. 2021, 35, 102392.
  19. Li, W.; Yang, J.; Luo, L.; Jiang, M.; Qin, B.; Yin, H.; Zhu, C.; Yuan, X.; Zhang, J.; Luo, Z.; et al. Targeting photodynamic and photothermal therapy to the endoplasmic reticulum enhances immunogenic cancer cell death. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 3349.
  20. Turubanova, V.D.; Balalaeva, I.V.; Mishchenko, T.A.; Catanzaro, E.; Alzeibak, R.; Peskova, N.N.; Efimova, I.; Bachert, C.; Mitroshina, E.V.; Krysko, O.; et al. Immunogenic cell death induced by a new photodynamic therapy based on photosens and photodithazine. J. Immunother. Cancer 2019, 7, 350.
  21. He, H.; Liu, L.; Liang, R.; Zhou, H.; Pan, H.; Zhang, S.; Cai, L. Tumor-targeted nanoplatform for in situ oxygenation-boosted immunogenic phototherapy of colorectal cancer. Acta Biomater. 2020, 104, 188–197.
  22. Deng, H.; Zhou, Z.; Yang, W.; Lin, L.-S.; Wang, S.; Niu, G.; Song, J.; Chen, X. Endoplasmic Reticulum Targeting to Amplify Immunogenic Cell Death for Cancer Immunotherapy. Nano Lett. 2020, 20, 1928–1933.
  23. Ganassin, R.; Oliveira, G.R.T.; da Rocha, M.C.O.; Morais, J.A.V.; Rodrigues, M.C.; Motta, F.N.; Azevedo, R.B.; Muehlmann, L.A. Curcumin induces immunogenic cell death in murine colorectal carcinoma CT26 cells. Pharmacol. Res.-Mod. Chin. Med. 2022, 2, 100046.
  24. Dulloo, I.; Atakpa-Adaji, P.; Yeh, Y.-C.; Levet, C.; Muliyil, S.; Lu, F.; Taylor, C.W.; Freeman, M. iRhom pseudoproteases regulate ER stress-induced cell death through IP3 receptors and BCL-2. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 1257.
  25. Iurlaro, R.; Muñoz-Pinedo, C. Cell death induced by endoplasmic reticulum stress. FEBS J. 2015, 283, 2640–2652.
  26. Acosta-Alvear, D.; Zhou, Y.; Blais, A.; Tsikitis, M.; Lents, N.H.; Arias, C.; Lennon, C.J.; Kluger, Y.; Dynlacht, B.D. XBP1 Controls Diverse Cell Type- and Condition-Specific Transcriptional Regulatory Networks. Mol. Cell 2007, 27, 53–66.
  27. Wang, Q.; Sun, A.-Z.; Chen, S.-T.; Chen, L.-S.; Guo, F.-Q. SPL6 represses signalling outputs of ER stress in control of panicle cell death in rice. Nat. Plants 2018, 4, 280–288.
  28. Shibusawa, R.; Yamada, E.; Okada, S.; Nakajima, Y.; Bastie, C.C.; Maeshima, A.; Kaira, K.; Yamada, M. Dapagliflozin rescues endoplasmic reticulum stress-mediated cell death. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 9887.
  29. Bezu, L.; Sauvat, A.; Humeau, J.; Leduc, M.; Kepp, O.; Kroemer, G. eIF2α phosphorylation: A hallmark of immunogenic cell death. OncoImmunology 2018, 7, e1431089.
  30. Anspach, L.; Tsaryk, R.; Seidmann, L.; Unger, R.E.; Jayasinghe, C.; Simiantonaki, N.; Kirkpatrick, C.J.; Pröls, F. Function and mutual interaction of BiP-, PERK-, and IRE1α-dependent signalling pathways in vascular tumours. J. Pathol. 2020, 251, 123–134.
  31. Yoshida, H.; Okada, T.; Haze, K.; Yanagi, H.; Yura, T.; Negishi, M.; Mori, K. ATF6 Activated by Proteolysis Binds in the Presence of NF-Y (CBF) Directly to the cis -Acting Element Responsible for the Mammalian Unfolded Protein Response. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2000, 20, 6755–6767.
  32. Rozpedek, W.; Pytel, D.; Mucha, B.; Leszczynska, H.; Diehl, J.A.; Majsterek, I. The Role of the PERK/eIF2α/ATF4/CHOP Signaling Pathway in Tumor Progression During Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress. Curr. Mol. Med. 2016, 16, 533–544.
  33. Klymenko, O.; Huehn, M.; Wilhelm, J.; Wasnick, R.; Shalashova, I.; Ruppert, C.; Henneke, I.; Hezel, S.; Guenther, K.; Mahavadi, P.; et al. Regulation and role of the ER stress transcription factor CHOP in alveolar epithelial type-II cells. Klin. Wochenschr. 2019, 97, 973–990.
  34. Yang, H.; Niemeijer, M.; van de Water, B.; Beltman, J.B. ATF6 Is a Critical Determinant of CHOP Dynamics during the Unfolded Protein Response. iScience 2020, 23, 100860.
  35. Sheng, X.; Nenseth, H.Z.; Qu, S.; Kuzu, O.F.; Frahnow, T.; Simon, L.; Greene, S.; Zeng, Q.; Fazli, L.; Rennie, P.S.; et al. IRE1α-XBP1s pathway promotes prostate cancer by activating c-MYC signaling. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 323.
  36. Voorwerk, L.; Slagter, M.; Horlings, H.M.; Sikorska, K.; Van De Vijver, K.K.; De Maaker, M.; Nederlof, I.; Kluin, R.J.C.; Warren, S.; Ong, S.; et al. Immune induction strategies in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer to enhance the sensitivity to PD-1 blockade: The TONIC trial. Nat. Med. 2019, 25, 920–928.
  37. Bota, D.A.; Chung, J.; Dandekar, M.; Carrillo, J.A.; Kong, X.-T.; Fu, B.D.; Hsu, F.P.; Schönthal, A.H.; Hofman, F.M.; Chen, T.C.; et al. Phase II study of ERC1671 plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab plus placebo in recurrent glioblastoma: Interim results and correlations with CD4+ T-lymphocyte counts. CNS Oncol. 2018, 7, CNS22.
  38. Le, D.T.; Jaffee, E.M. Regulatory T-cell Modulation Using Cyclophosphamide in Vaccine Approaches: A Current Perspective. Cancer Res. 2012, 72, 3439–3444.
  39. Vaes, R.; Hendriks, L.; Vooijs, M.; De Ruysscher, D. Biomarkers of Radiotherapy-Induced Immunogenic Cell Death. Cells 2021, 10, 930.
  40. Rothammer, A.; Sage, E.K.; Werner, C.; Combs, S.E.; Multhoff, G. Increased heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) serum levels and low NK cell counts after radiotherapy—Potential markers for predicting breast cancer recurrence? Radiat. Oncol. 2019, 14, 78.
  41. Hongo, K.; Kazama, S.; Tsuno, N.H.; Ishihara, S.; Sunami, E.; Kitayama, J.; Watanabe, T. Immunohistochemical detection of high-mobility group box 1 correlates with resistance of preoperative chemoradiotherapy for lower rectal cancer: A retrospective study. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 13, 7.
  42. Huang, C.-Y.; Chiang, S.-F.; Ke, T.-W.; Chen, T.-W.; Lan, Y.-C.; You, Y.-S.; Shiau, A.-C.; Chen, W.T.-L.; Chao, K.S.C. Cytosolic high-mobility group box protein 1 (HMGB1) and/or PD-1+ TILs in the tumor microenvironment may be contributing prognostic biomarkers for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who have undergone neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2018, 67, 551–562.
  43. Muehlmann, L.; Ma, B.; Longo, J.P.; Santos, M.; Azevedo, R. Aluminum–phthalocyanine chloride associated to poly(methyl vinyl ether-co-maleic anhydride) nanoparticles as a new third-generation photosensitizer for anticancer photodynamic therapy. Int. J. Nanomed. 2014, 9, 1199–1213.
  44. Garg, A.D.; Agostinis, P. ER stress, autophagy and immunogenic cell death in photodynamic therapy-induced anti-cancer immune responses. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2014, 13, 474–487.
  45. Fucikova, J.; Kepp, O.; Kasikova, L.; Petroni, G.; Yamazaki, T.; Liu, P.; Zhao, L.; Spisek, R.; Kroemer, G.; Galluzzi, L. Detection of immunogenic cell death and its relevance for cancer therapy. Cell Death Dis. 2020, 11, 1013.
  46. Liu, P.; Zhao, L.; Loos, F.; Iribarren, K.; Lachkar, S.; Zhou, H.; da Silva, L.C.G.; Chen, G.; Bezu, L.; Boncompain, G.; et al. Identification of pharmacological agents that induce HMGB1 release. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 14915.
  47. Sun, Y.; Feng, X.; Wan, C.; Lovell, J.F.; Jin, H.; Ding, J. Role of nanoparticle-mediated immunogenic cell death in cancer immunotherapy. Asian J. Pharm. Sci. 2020, 16, 129–132.
  48. Longo, J.P.F.; Muehlmann, L.A. Nanomedicine beyond tumor passive targeting: What next? Nanomedicine 2020, 15, 1819–1822.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Immunology
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register : Mosar Corrêa Rodrigues ,
José Athayde Vasconcelos Morais
,
Rayane Ganassin
,
Giulia Rosa Tavares Oliveira
,
Fabiana Chagas Costa
,
Amanda Alencar Cabral Morais
,
Ariane Pandolfo Silveira
, Victor Carlos Mello Silva , João Paulo Figueiró Longo , Luis Alexandre Muehlmann
View Times: 873
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Date: 02 Sep 2022
Table of Contents
    Notice
    You are not a member of the advisory board for this topic. If you want to update advisory board member profile, please contact office@encyclopedia.pub.
    OK
    Confirm
    Only members of the Encyclopedia advisory board for this topic are allowed to note entries. Would you like to become an advisory board member of the Encyclopedia?
    Yes
    No
    ${ textCharacter }/${ maxCharacter }
    Submit
    Cancel
    There is no comment~
    ${ textCharacter }/${ maxCharacter }
    Submit
    Cancel
    ${ selectedItem.replyTextCharacter }/${ selectedItem.replyMaxCharacter }
    Submit
    Cancel
    Confirm
    Are you sure to Delete?
    Yes No
    Academic Video Service
    Feedback