Next Article in Journal
Exosomes are the Driving Force in Preparing the Soil for the Metastatic Seeds: Lessons from the Prostate Cancer
Next Article in Special Issue
TNFα Rescues Dendritic Cell Development in Hematopoietic Stem and Progenitor Cells Lacking C/EBPα
Previous Article in Journal
Alternative Cell Sources for Liver Parenchyma Repopulation: Where Do We Stand?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cells
Volume 9
Issue 3
10.3390/cells9030565
cells-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Cross-Presenting XCR1+ Dendritic Cells as Targets for Cancer Immunotherapy

by
Katherine M. Audsley
1,2,*,
Alison M. McDonnell
1,3,*,† and
Jason Waithman
1,*,†
1
Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth Children’s Hospital, Nedlands, WA 6009, Australia
2
School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
3
National Centre for Asbestos Related Diseases, The University of Western Australia, QEII Medical Centre, Nedlands, WA 6009, Australia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this paper.
Cells 2020, 9(3), 565; https://doi.org/10.3390/cells9030565
Submission received: 31 January 2020 / Revised: 14 February 2020 / Accepted: 25 February 2020 / Published: 28 February 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dendritic Cells in Immunity and Inflammation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The use of dendritic cells (DCs) to generate effective anti-tumor T cell immunity has garnered much attention over the last thirty-plus years. Despite this, limited clinical benefit has been demonstrated thus far. There has been a revival of interest in DC-based treatment strategies following the remarkable patient responses observed with novel checkpoint blockade therapies, due to the potential for synergistic treatment. Cross-presenting DCs are recognized for their ability to prime CD8+ T cell responses to directly induce tumor death. Consequently, they are an attractive target for next-generation DC-based strategies. In this review, we define the universal classification system for cross-presenting DCs, and the vital role of this subset in mediating anti-tumor immunity. Furthermore, we will detail methods of targeting these DCs both ex vivo and in vivo to boost their function and drive effective anti-tumor responses.

1. Introduction

The revolutionary success of cancer immunotherapies harnessing T cell immunity has renewed interest in novel therapeutic strategies targeting dendritic cells (DCs). One of the most successful immunotherapy strategies in routine clinical use is immune checkpoint blockade therapy (ICB), which blocks inhibitory signaling pathways to activate tumor-specific T cells that would otherwise remain suppressed [1]. However, the majority of patients receiving ICB ultimately succumb to their disease, with therapy failure partially attributed to insufficient recruitment of tumor-specific T cells [2]. This highlights the need for effective vaccines targeting the generation of robust T cell immunity capable of synergizing with established treatments.
Since their discovery in 1973 [3], DCs have been recognized for their unique ability to link the innate and adaptive arms of the immune system via presentation of antigen to T cells. Consequently, they have long been considered attractive targets for anti-cancer therapies. There have been over 200 clinical trials evaluating the use of DC vaccines against cancer, whereby DCs are loaded ex vivo with cancer-derived antigens to induce T cell immunity [4,5]. Despite the success of Sipuleucel-T as an established treatment for prostate cancer [6], successful immunotherapies based on the concept of specifically targeting DCs for therapeutic benefit remain limited. In recent years, our increased knowledge of basic DC biology has led to the development of many new and novel DC-based strategies capable of promoting durable responses in cancer patients.
DCs are functionally heterogeneous and can broadly be categorized into three subsets. Plasmacytoid DCs (pDCs) are predominantly involved in anti-viral immunity and promoting tolerance to both innocuous- and self-antigens [7,8]. The conventional DCs (cDCs) consist of cDC1 and cDC2 subsets that are responsible for antigen presentation to CD8+ and CD4+ T cells in the context of MHCI and MHCII, respectively [9]. Finally, inflammatory DCs differentiate from monocytes during conditions of inflammation in the body, such as infection and cancer [10,11]. One of the potential reasons underlying the failure of early DC vaccination protocols was the use of monocyte-derived DCs, later realized to have a relatively poor antigen presentation capacity [5,10]. Current vaccination strategies take into consideration the increased antigen presentation capabilities and functional specialization of specific DC subsets. The cDC1 population is recognized for its unique capacity to cross-present exogenous antigen to CD8+ T cells, and is, therefore, a logical choice to induce effective cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) responses with DC vaccination [4]. One of the issues confounding the targeting of cross-presenting DCs in the treatment of disease for many years was the lack of a classification system that encompasses this functional subset. In particular, while there was evidence for a functional counterpart in humans, the lack of a universal marker made translation of studies into humans difficult. Eventually, the discovery of a shared ontogeny for Batf3 [12,13,14] united the cross-presenting population, further supported by the identification of a universal surface marker on cross-presenting DCs—the chemokine receptor, XCR1 [15,16,17].
There is significant evidence for the role of cross-presenting DCs in cancer [13,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. Focus is now being directed towards enhancing the function of these DCs, including improved antigen loading, proliferation, maturation, antigen presentation and recruitment in vivo. Current strategies include the use of adjuvants to promote maturation [23,28], chemokines to promote DC-CD8+ T cell interaction and migration [26,29,30], and antibody and chemokine constructs that target antigen to XCR1+ DCs [31,32,33]. Here, we will discuss the defining features of the cross-presenting DC population, methods of targeting them for the generation of effective CD8+ T cell-driven anti-tumor responses, and the potential for these approaches to synergize with ICB.

2. Cross-Presenting Dendritic Cells—A Functional Niche

Cross-presentation, first reported by Bevan and colleagues in the mid-1970′s, defines the process of internalizing exogenous antigen and shunting it into the MHC class I pathway for presentation to CD8+ T cells [34,35]. It is now well established that DCs are the major cross-presenting population [36] and play a critical role in the generation of viral and tumor-specific CTL responses [18,37,38]. Seminal work in mice by Shortman and colleagues identified cDC1 (CD11bneg) CD8-expressing DCs in secondary lymphoid organs as the cross-presenting subset [9,13,18,39,40,41,42]. Subsequently, it was determined that a proportion of migratory DCs could also cross-present, whereby CD103+CD11bneg DCs excel in the cross-presentation of antigen from the lung [43,44,45], intestine [46,47] and skin [21,48,49]. A functional counterpart in humans was first defined as BDCA-3+ (CD141+) based on phenotypic and transcriptomic studies [17,50,51,52,53]. BDCA-3high DC appear to represent the migratory equivalent in humans, a subset that was challenging to identify for many years due to the difficulty in obtaining sufficient samples [54,55,56]. In recent years, cross-presenting DCs in mice and humans have been unified by the identification of shared ontogeny and phenotypic markers (summarized in Table 1). cDC1s depend on the transcription factors IRF-8, Id2, and Batf3 for their development [12,13,14,57,58,59,60], and selectively express the C type lectin receptor CLEC9A (DNGR-1) [31,45,61] and the chemokine receptor XCR1 [15,16,59]. The exclusivity of XCR1 expression for cross-presenting DCs was confirmed with the development of an XCR1-specific antibody and generation of an XCR1-LacZ reporter mouse [15,16,59]. In line with this, there is a perfect correlation between Batf3 dependency and XCR1 expression, with all XCR1+ cells absent in Batf3−/− mice [16,62]. Importantly, XCR1 is expressed on both lymphoid and peripheral cross-presenting DC in both mice and humans [16,62,63]. In addition, cDC1 share expression of the pattern recognition receptor (PRR) TLR3 [10,64], producing high amounts of IL-12 upon activation [65]. They are also known to be the major producers of IFN-λ following TLR3 ligation [66].
Both lymphoid-resident and migratory cross-presenting DCs are specialized in the uptake, processing and cross-presentation of antigen derived from stressed cells [59,67]. Originally, the superior cross-presentation ability of these DC was thought to be due to an exclusive ability to internalize exogenous antigen from apoptotic and necrotic cells [68,69]. One of the characteristic features of cross-presenting DC is, after all, the expression of surface receptors specific for dead and dying cell antigens, such as CLEC9A and CD36 [31,45,61,70]. However, studies in mice have shown that CD8+ and CD8neg DCs can similarly capture both soluble and cell-associated antigens, as demonstrated by the ability of CD8neg DCs to generate robust antigen-specific CD4+ T cell responses [39,40,41]. Only CD8+ DCs can present antigen on MHC class I complexes, however, indicating the existence of specialized intracellular processing machinery [40,41,69]. The exact mechanisms of intracellular processing remain elusive, although a preference for the cytosolic pathway has been demonstrated in both lymphoid-resident and migratory cross-presenting DC [71,72]. Unlike the vacuolar pathway, whereby antigen is degraded into peptides within the phagosome, the cytosolic pathway requires phagocytosed antigen to be exported into the cytosol for processing by the proteasome prior to MHC class I loading (reviewed extensively in [73,74]). Differential upregulation of proteins involved in MHCI and MHCII processing pathways by CD8+ and CD8neg DC, respectively, could also explain the preferential processing of exogenous antigen for MHCI presentation [39]. XCR1 expression by cross-presenting DCs may also play a role, as it is known that XCR1 engagement by its ligand, XCL1, promotes interaction between cross-presenting DC and CD8+ T cells to enhance cross-priming [15,63]. With the identification of a universal surface marker, XCR1, to demarcate the Batf3-dependent cross-presenting DC lineage, we are now acutely primed to translate the use of these cells into the clinic.

3. Critical Role for Cross-Presenting DCs in Cancer

An essential role for DCs in cancer immune surveillance is well established [5,75]. A particular focus on the importance of XCR1+ DCs is warranted, due to their ability to orchestrate productive CD8+ T cell immunity. Here, we discuss the role of this population in mediating anti-tumor responses, including substantial evidence that demonstrates that their suppression within the tumor microenvironment (TME) impedes tumor clearance.

3.1. XCR1+ DCs and Cancer

As the cell population responsible for processing innate signals to induce specific CD8+ T cell responses, XCR1+ DCs are crucial in the generation of successful adaptive immune responses against viral challenges [13,27,76] and the induction of peripheral tolerance [48,77]. More recently, there is mounting evidence that the cross-presenting DC subtype is critical in potentiating anti-tumor responses. Experiments utilizing Batf3−/− mice lacking cross-presenting DCs failed to control syngeneic fibrosarcomas that were rapidly rejected in wildtype mice, with a lack of tumor-specific CTLs implicated [13]. A decrease in tumor-infiltrating CD103+ DC due to tumor-intrinsic upregulation of β-catenin resulted in impaired priming and recruitment of effector CD8+ T cells into the TME in an induced melanoma model [20,78]. Batf3−/− mice, as generated and characterized by Hildner and colleagues, selectively lack CD8+ cDCs and CD103+CD11bneg DCs whilst demonstrating equivalent total cell numbers of other DC subtypes [12,13]. In particular, humoral and CD4+ T cell responses are not compromised in Bat3−/− mice, nor is CD8+ T cell differentiation or ex vivo effector function affected [13]. It may be important in the interpretation of studies utilizing Batf3−/−, however, to consider the limitations of this frequently used model. These include as follows: (i) Batf3 is expressed in a number of other cell types including cDC2, albeit not as highly as in cDC1s, (ii) cDC1 depletion is less effective in mice with a C57BL/6 background, compared to other strains such as 129/SvEv, (iii) intracellular infection or IL-12 injection can restore cDC1 development and (iv) regulatory T cells are increased in knock-out mice [13,79,80]. More recently, it has been demonstrated that WDFY4 is required for cross-presentation by cDC1. While WDFY4-deficient mice have normal cDC1 development, anti-tumor immunity is compromised in this strain [27]. Similarly, the XCR1-DTR model allows exclusive depletion of developmentally normal XCR1+ DCs following diphtheria toxin injection, although has not yet to our knowledge been used in cancer models [81]. It is anticipated that an increased use of more targeted approaches of cross-presenting DC depletion may overcome the uncertainty associated with the caveats of the Batf3−/− model, unequivocally establishing cross-presenting DCs as an essential component in anti-tumor responses.
In humans, high numbers of cross-presenting BDCA3+ DCs in the TME is associated with increased T cell infiltration and improved prognosis in cancer patients [20]. A high CD103+/CD103neg DC ratio signature was found to strongly correlate with improved overall patient survival across 12 cancer types [19]. Increased IL-12 expression in human breast cancer patients, a cytokine secreted by activated cross-presenting DC, positively correlated with pathological complete response rates [82]. Despite this, cross-presenting DCs are typically under-represented in both mouse [23,82] and human [19,83] tumors.

3.2. XCR1+ DCs Potentiate Current Cancer Immunotherapy Strategies

The dependence of several clinically approved immunotherapies on the presence and function of cross-presenting DCs provides significant insight into their crucial role. For example, low numbers of Batf3-dependent DCs in the TME is associated with limited adoptive cell therapy (ACT) success in an inducible mouse model of melanoma [78]. This was explained by an absence of the CD103+-derived CXCL9/10 chemokines, resulting in reduced T cell trafficking into the TME [78]. A recent study in mice demonstrated effective sub-therapeutic doses of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells against solid tumors when administered with a liposomal RNA vaccine [84]. The RNA-encoded CAR antigen was delivered to all antigen-presenting cells (APCs); however, the increased expansion and effector function of CD8+ CAR-T cells implies a vital role for cross-presenting DCs in the established tumor control [84].
Immune checkpoint therapy acts to promote robust CTL responses by activation of costimulatory receptors or blocking of co-inhibitory receptors on tumor-specific T cells. In line with this, the presence and abundance of cDC1 within the TME is associated with improved patient outcomes in several types of cancer [19,20,25,26], and response to checkpoint blockade therapy in mice [20] and humans [25]. Conversely, tumor-bearing Batf3-deficient mice demonstrated non-responsiveness to anti-PD1, anti-PDL1 and anti-CD137 checkpoint blockade [23,85]. B-catenin-mediated depletion of tumor-infiltrating CD103+ DCs in mice induced resistance to anti-CTLA4 and anti-PDL1 treatment, which was overcome by the transfer of Flt3L-generated cDC1-like cells stimulated with poly I:C [20]. Direct transfer of pre-activated DCs, or “DC vaccination”, has itself shown promising anti-cancer potential in isolation and in combination with other therapies, which will be discussed in further detail below.
XCR1+ DCs can also facilitate anti-cancer immune activity in response to cancer treatments such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy and photodynamic therapy, which are all known to induce immunogenic cell death (ICD) (reviewed in [86,87,88]). ICD is characterized by the release of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) from dying tumor cells, resulting in the recruitment and activation of immune cells, specifically cross-presenting DCs [89,90]. DAMPs are critical to this process as they promote DC maturation and the provision of the necessary co-stimulatory signals (CD80, CD86, production of type 1 interferon) required for functional activation of T cells, or cross-priming. The distinctive properties of ICD include i) exposure of calreticulin (CRT) and other ER proteins (HSP70, HSP90) at the cell surface, which act as “eat me” signals facilitating antigen uptake by DCs [91,92], ii) secretion of ATP, which promotes recruitment and activation of DCs via interaction with P2RY2 and P2RX7, respectively [93,94], iii) release of annexin A1 (ANXA1) [95,96], which guides DCs to dying tumor cells and binds formyl peptide receptor 1 on DCs to enable uptake of tumor antigens, and, iv) secretion of HMGB1, which interacts with TLR4 on DCs to promote DC maturation and antigen presentation [97]. Accordingly, cross-presenting DCs are key mediators of this process and anti-cancer treatments inducing ICD are impaired in their absence [93,97]. The productive anti-cancer immune response generated by chemotherapy—or radiotherapy—induced ICD is dependent on TLR4-expressing DCs [97]. Similarly, the immunogenic effects of ATP release from dying tumor cells is dependent on IL-β production by DCs and subsequent recruitment of antigen-specific CD8+ T cells [93]. Therefore, treatments designed to promote ICD and enhance cross-presenting DC activity have the potential to synergize with both classical cancer treatments and emerging immunotherapy strategies.

3.3. The Immunosuppressive TME Inhibits XCR1+ DCs, Promoting Immune Evasion

One of the major challenges in cancer treatment is overcoming the immunosuppressive TME. Negative regulation of DC recruitment, differentiation, activation and survival within the TME culminates in defective tumor-specific T cell responses and increased tumor growth [98]. STAT, MAPK, and β-catenin signaling pathways have been implicated in the induction of an immune-suppressed phenotype in tumor-infiltrating DCs [99]. For example, DC hyperphosphorylation of signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3), such as in response to pro-inflammatory cytokines, has been associated with poor maturation status and immunosuppression [100,101,102,103]. Tumor-intrinsic upregulation of β-catenin signaling induces down-regulation of the chemoattractants CCL4 [20] and CCL5 [104] in both mice and humans, and is associated with reduced cDC1 and CD8+ T cell infiltration, increased tumor growth [20,104], and resistance to anti-PD1 therapy [104]. It has also been demonstrated that β-catenin signaling in DCs can directly inhibit their ability to cross-present, abrogating CD8+ T cell-mediated tumor control [105]. DC-expressed TIM3 similarly inhibits cross-presentation by sequestering the alarmin HMGB1 to prevent uptake of immunogenic nucleic acids from dying cancer cells [106].
Secretion of anti-inflammatory cytokines such as IL10 and TGF-β in the TME can impair cDC differentiation and maturation [24,103]. In line with this, DCs isolated from the TME may lack appropriate maturation markers and have a diminished capacity to prime T cells [107]. Tumor cells, macrophages, DCs and Tregs have all been implicated in the production of IL-10 in the TME [108]. Local IL-10 negatively regulates DC maturation and IL-12 production, and consequently, their capacity to cross-prime T cells [109,110]. Tumor-derived CSF-1 recruits macrophages into the TME, resulting in increased IL-10 levels and defective anti-tumor CD8+ T cell responses [82]. Tumor-derived MMP-2 has also been found to inhibit IL-12 secretion, and is correlated with poor prognosis in patients [111,112]. Prostaglandin E2 secreted by tumors can also prevent DC recruitment and maturation via inhibition of NK cell function [24]. The loss of Flt3L, CCL5, and XCL1 secretion by tumor-infiltrating NK cells impacts recruitment and survival of cross-presenting DCs, and correlates with increased tumor growth [22,24,25,26] and responsiveness to anti-PD1 therapy [25]. These studies reveal a vital relationship between NK cells and DCs within the TME, and an anti-tumor role for NK cells beyond direct lytic activity [25]. Tumor-derived VEGF subverts NK cell function by blocking Flt3L, profoundly impacting XCR1+ DC development and function [113,114,115]. TME-induced stress on DCs can impede antigen cross-presentation and tumor control [116,117]. For example, tumor-derived lipid peroxidation by-products resulted in abnormal lipid accumulation within intratumoral DCs and subsequent dysfunction [115]. This process was mediated by constitutive activation of endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress response factor XBP1, with knock-out or silencing of XBP1 promoting survival of ovarian cancer-bearing mice [115]. LXRα agonists secreted by tumor cells can similarly promote tumor growth by blocking CCR7-mediated migration of cDCs from the TME to tumor-draining lymph nodes (TDLNs) [118]. One of the major goals of DC-based therapies is to prevent suppression of cross-presenting DC function to enable successful T cell priming and effective anti-tumor responses.

4. Targeting Cross-Presenting DC for Cancer Treatment

The unprecedented success of checkpoint blockade therapy has promoted renewed interest in targeting DCs, due to the likelihood of synergy with combined approaches. Indeed, there have been numerous studies establishing the importance of DCs in successful checkpoint blockade response [20,23,25,85,119,120,121]. To date, much of DC-based research and clinical trials utilize monocyte-derived DCs (MoDCs) or broadly target the DC compartment. Given their specialized ability to generate anti-cancer CTL activity and synergize with a number of cancer treatments, the merit in specifically targeting the cross-presenting DC subset in cancer therapy is increasingly being recognized [4,99,122]. One approach involves the exclusive transfer of preloaded, activated cross-presenting DCs as a next-generation DC vaccination protocol [123] (Figure 1). Alternatively, cross-presenting DCs can be targeted in vivo, with the administration of adjuvants, chemokines, and targeting strategies designed to activate, recruit and deliver antigen to cross-presenting DCs (summarized in Table 2 and Figure 2).

4.1. DC Vaccination

DC vaccination can involve the transfer of pre-activated DCs loaded ex vivo with antigen to generate T cell responses. The last thirty years have produced a prolific number of clinical trials in the field of anti-cancer DC vaccination, albeit success has been limited [123,124]. Sipuleucel-T (Provenge) is the only DC-based cancer vaccine that is FDA-approved for clinical use against castration-resistant prostate cancer [98]. It consists of autologous blood-derived APCs loaded with prostatic acid phosphatase and GM-CSF fusion protein [5]. Whilst clearly a promising success story, with median overall survival prolonged by 4.1 months, advances are necessary for wider use and improved durable responses [6]. With increased understanding of DC subtype specialties and the limitations underlying current vaccination strategies, the opportunity exists to develop improved next-generation DC vaccines for greater clinical benefit.
One promising approach is to specifically utilize the cross-presenting DC subtype for vaccination. We know that XCR1+ cross-presenting DCs are far more effective at generating CTL responses than other DC subtypes [59,69]. Despite this, the majority of clinical trials for DC vaccination to date have utilized MoDCs derived from patient blood monocytes or CD34+ precursors [124,125,126]. This is partly due to the lack of knowledge regarding functional specialties of the various DC subtypes, particularly for early vaccination attempts, but also because of the ability to readily generate substantial quantities of MoDCs [126]. There is mounting evidence, however, that these are not the optimal DC subtype to produce successful anti-cancer immune responses [127]. MoDCs do not functionally reflect in vivo cross-presenting DCs, and possess significantly poorer antigen presentation capabilities [10,128]. Studies in mice have demonstrated improved efficacy with the use of a cross-presenting DC vaccine, relative to an equivalent MoDC approach [120]. Unfortunately, the current difficulty in obtaining sufficient quantities of cross-presenting DC from patient blood limits the translation of this approach to humans. It is hoped that the advent of new differentiation protocols will allow the use of this more targeted approach to generate CTL responses in humans in the future [51,127,129]. Indeed, there have been a number of recent advances in the large-scale generation of cross-presenting XCR1+ DCs in vitro using novel cell culture methods [130] and protocols employing CD34+ stem cells [131,132].
Further opportunities to improve DC vaccination strategies include the addition of appropriate adjuvants to boost DC function, and methods to encourage migration into the TDLNs. It has been shown that autologous DCs are often dysfunctional, inducing T cell tolerance rather than activation due to a lack of maturation markers [107,123]. However, this can be overcome with appropriate adjuvant stimulation [107,130]. Importantly, it is necessary to consider the efficacy of specific adjuvants that directly target cross-presenting DCs. The various DC subtypes display differential responsiveness to specific adjuvants, particularly TLR agonists, such that those promoting MoDC activation do not affect XCR1+ DC function in a similar manner [4]. One of the primary difficulties faced in DC vaccination approaches is ensuring successful migration to the TDLNs, which is typically poor [133]. Most DC vaccines are administered intradermally, in close proximity to superficial LNs, and yet only 5% of DCs traffic to the LNs using this vaccination route [123,134]. One strategy to help augment this is ultrasound-guided intranodal injection; however, this is technically challenging [123]. A phase I trial demonstrated superior T cell function with intranodal injection of an autologous peptide-pulsed DC vaccine, as compared to intravenous or intradermal injection routes [135]. Developing protocols to promote appropriate chemokine receptor expression may provide an alternate approach to optimize DC trafficking to the LNs.
Overall, autologous DC vaccination has several putative advantages when compared to targeting DCs in vivo. Activating DCs ex vivo bypasses potential tolerogenic signals present in the body, particularly within the immunosuppressive TME [5]. It also circumvents the dependence on successful transportation of antigens and adjuvants to the necessary location and targeted cells, which can be relatively inefficient [122]. Moreover, it allows for quality control prior to transfer to ensure the appropriate activation and function of the transferred DCs [5]. Conversely, there are also arguments favoring the targeting of DCs in vivo. Autologous DC vaccination requires the large-scale generation of DCs ex vivo, which can be time-consuming, complex and expensive [122]. It is also reliant on the successful trafficking of DCs to the TDLNs for T cell priming [133]. Delivery of antigen and stimulatory adjuvants in vivo may ultimately mitigate these limitations, albeit at the expense of other restrictions.
Table
Table 2. Agents promoting cross-presenting DC development, maturation, function, and/or migration.
Table 2. Agents promoting cross-presenting DC development, maturation, function, and/or migration.
THERAPEUTIC EXAMPLES
AGENTRESPONSEMurineClinical Trials in Cancer
CYTOKINESGM-CSF (e.g., GVAX, T-VEC)Differentiation, mobilization and activation of cDCs[136,137,138]NCT00065442—FDA approved (Sipuleucel-T) NCT00769704—FDA approved (T-VEC) NCT01435499 NCT01740297
Flt3L (e.g., CDX-301)Differentiation, mobilization and expansion of XCR1+ DCs[23,121,139]NCT01465139 [140] NCT02129075 NCT02839265 NCT01976585
Type I IFNUpregulation of DC maturation markers (e.g., MHCII, CD40, CD80/86)[119,141,142,143,144,145]NCT00006249—FDA approved (Pegylated IFNα2) NCT00204529 NCT01545141
TLR AGONISTSTLR3 agonists (e.g., poly I:C and its derivatives)[23,85,121,146]NCT01188096 [134] NCT01734564 NCT02129075
STING AGONISTSCyclic dinucleotides (e.g., ADU-S100)[147,148,149]NCT02675439 NCT03172936
Non-nucleotidic STING agonists (e.g., DMXAA)[150]NCT00662597 [151]
CO-STIMULATORY MOLECULESCD40L/anti-CD40 antibodiesProvide co-stimulation during T cell priming[152,153,154,155]NCT00458679 NCT02482168 NCT00678119
INHIBITORSSTAT3 inhibitors (e.g., OPB-51602)Prevent immunosuppression to promote DC maturation[100,101]NCT00955812 NCT01423903
IDO inhibitors (e.g., 1-MT, NLG919)[156,157]NCT01042535 NCT01792050
CHEMOKINESCCL5Recruitment of cDCs[158]Nil.
XCL1Recruitment of XCR1+ DCs[26,159]Nil.

4.2. Adjuvants

DC maturation status and upregulation of co-stimulatory receptors is critical for successful T cell priming, yet this is often undermined by a lack of appropriate stimulatory signals and/or an immunosuppressive TME [160]. Adjuvants such as cytokines, toll-like receptor (TLR) and stimulator of interferon genes (STING) agonists, or co-stimulatory receptor ligands aim to overcome this by promoting DC activation, proliferation, and recruitment. They can be used to stimulate DC in vivo or during the generation of DCs ex vivo for DC vaccination [161]. This is typically demonstrated by an increase in proliferation, upregulation of MHC complexes and co-stimulatory molecules (e.g., CD40, CD80, CD86), cytokine secretion (e.g., IL-12, IFN) and chemokine expression (e.g., CCR7).
The cytokines GM-CSF and Flt3L both act to stimulate DC development and differentiation. GM-CSF has been used therapeutically for many years, and is commonly used in conjunction with DC vaccines and other cancer immunotherapies to support tumor rejection [138,162,163]. GVAX refers to a vaccine platform utilizing irradiated tumor cells engineered to express GM-CSF [163]. Widely used, it has been demonstrated to induce tumor-specific T cell responses, synergizing with PD1 and CTLA4 blockade in pre-clinical models of pancreatic and prostate cancer, respectively (reviewed in [28]). Clinical trials testing the efficacy of GVAX combined with anti-PD1 therapy and/or immunogenic chemotherapy are currently underway in patients with advanced pancreatic and colon cancer (NCT02648282, NCT03153410, NCT03006302, NCT03767582, NCT01966289). However, to better target the cross-presenting DC population, Flt3L may be a more appropriate cytokine. GM-CSF acts to broadly induce differentiation of a number of DC subsets, particularly inflammatory DCs [69,164]. In contrast, whilst Flt3L does promote expansion of a number of DC subtypes, it is the limiting cytokine for the development of XCR1+ DCs in both mice and men [69,165,166]. In vivo injection of Flt3L dramatically boosts CD8+XCR1+ and CD103+XCR1+ DC numbers, establishing them as the dominant DC population in the spleen [165,167,168] and tumor [23], respectively. Flt3L-induced expansion of CD8α+ DCs induces expansion of antigen-specific CD8+ T cells, and mediates tumor regression in synergy with TLR agonists and checkpoint blockade [23,121,139,152,169]. Curran et al. compared whole cell vaccination with GM-CSF- and Flt3L-expressing tumor cells, and found significantly higher DC and CD8+ T cell infiltration with the Flt3L treatment [139]. The preference for Flt3L to enhance cross-presenting DCs may be beneficial in the treatment of cancer, particularly when used in combination with other therapies targeting this subset. In line with this, clinical trials testing the efficacy of recombinant human Flt3L (CDX-301, Celldex Therapeutics) in various combinations with anti-CD40 (CDX-1401), poly-ICLC, pembrolizumab and radiotherapy are currently underway for patients with melanoma (NCT02129075), lymphoma (NCT01976585), prostate cancer (NCT03835533) and other advanced malignancies (NCT03329950, NCT03789097).
TLR and STING agonists can act on DCs to promote maturation and cytokine secretion, thus mediating T cell activation and effector function [170]. Of the TLR agonists, those targeting TLR3 are likely to be the most appropriate choice for effective activation of cross-presenting DCs. Despite wide-spread TLR expression on mouse XCR1+ DCs, human XCR1+ DCs exclusively express TLR3 (see Table 2). TLR3 agonists, such as poly I:C, are shown to synergize with both checkpoint blockade [23] and DC vaccination [171], by activating DCs and promoting cross-presentation to produce enhanced tumor control [23,85,121,171]. Hammerich et al. demonstrated anti-tumor efficacy with a combined in situ vaccination approach, whereby mice or patients (NCT01976585) received a TLR3 agonist, Flt3L, and radiotherapy [121]. A requirement for Batf3-dependent cDC1s in the anti-cancer effects of poly I:C has been demonstrated in this and other studies [51,121,172]. Binding of TLR3 by double-stranded RNA results in activation of the NF-kB pathway and the transcription factor interferon regulating factor 3 (IRF3), to ultimately induce the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, particularly the type I interferons (IFNs) [173,174]. Type I IFN signaling has been shown to promote tumor rejection in a process mediated by CD8+ DCs in the TDLNs [119,141,142]. The enhancement of cross-presentation by type I IFN has been implicated previously [143,144,145]. It should be noted that TLR9 agonists have also been shown to activate human cDCs to promote cancer-specific CD8+ T cell responses [175]. Similar to TLR3 agonists, STING agonists also act to induce secretion of type I IFN, and other inflammatory cytokines, via NF-kB and IRF3 [176,177,178]. Activation of the STING pathway in vitro induces DC activation, with impaired CD8+ T cell priming in mice lacking this pathway [147]. Direct intratumoral injection of STING agonists was found to mediate regression of both primary and metastatic tumor lesions, in a process requiring Batf3-dependent DCs [148]. Clearly activation of cross-presenting DCs with TLR and STING agonists, or their downstream cytokines, has great implications for cancer immunotherapy.
Engagement of CD40 on DCs, typically via interaction with CD40L on helper CD4+ T cells, is essential for successful T cell priming [161,179]. Promising studies in both mice and humans indicate delivery of agonistic antibodies to CD40 activates DCs both in vivo and ex vivo to induce tumor-specific CD8+ T cell responses [152,153,155], and synergize with poly I:C treatment [180] independent of CD4+ T cell help. However, therapeutic use is limited due to severe toxicities associated with anti-CD40 treatment in the clinic, primarily cytokine release syndrome [155]. These side-effects are being addressed by the development of slow-release formulations, and targeted delivery to the TDLNs [154]. In summary, the use of adjuvants which induce DC maturation and activation are likely to be critical for the effective use of DC-based immunotherapies against cancer.

4.3. Chemokines

Chemokines and their receptors are vital in anti-cancer immune responses for their ability to direct the trafficking of DCs and other immune cells. For example, CCR7 expression on migratory CD103+ DCs that have encountered antigen facilitates their migration from the TME to tumor-draining LNs for the cross-presentation of antigen to CD8+ T cells [23,29]. CCR7, in addition to NK cell-secreted CCL5 and XCL1, may also be involved in the initial recruitment of DCs into the TME [26,118,181,182]. The use of XCL1 is of particular interest due to its ability to specifically attract cross-presenting XCR1+ DCs. This has been exploited in the context of transgene therapy, whereby local expression of XCL1 and the differentiation factor Flt3L was induced by intratumoral injection of a Semliki Forest Virus (SFV)-based vector encoding these genes [183]. Treatment was associated with an increase in intratumoral CD103+ cDC1s, enhanced cross-priming, and a Batf3-dependent delay in tumor progression [183]. Importantly, expression of both Flt3L and XCL1 was required for optimal anti-tumor effects [183]. In addition to the chemoattractant and differentiation/survival properties of XCL1 and Flt3L respectively, the SFV vector itself releases viral dsRNA, inducing XCR1+ DC maturation via TLR3 in an elegant synergy of XCR1+ DC-targeting agents [183,184]. Once recruited to the TME, DCs secrete chemokines that aid in T cell trafficking into tumors. For example, CD103+ DC-derived CXCL9/10 promotes CD8+ T cell infiltration into the TME [78]. This CXCL9/10 secretion by CD103+ DCs was found to be essential for response to anti-PD1 treatment [185]. Consideration of chemokines and their receptors is likely to be imperative in overcoming the substantial limitations presented with current DC-based vaccination strategies.

4.4. Targeting Antibodies

A significant challenge for in vivo targeting of DCs is the delivery of antigen and/or adjuvant to DCs in the lymph node and/or tumor site. Complexing antigen with novel targeting antibodies is providing a promising solution to efficiently direct antigen to these DCs, with antibody-adjuvant complexes likely to reduce dose-limiting toxicities [5]. Antibodies are commonly directed against C-type lectin receptors (CLRs), due to their presence on the surface of DCs, and involvement in endocytosis [186]. Anti-DEC205-coupled antigens demonstrate a greater likelihood of cross-presentation relative to non-conjugated antigen [187,188], resulting in greater CD8+ T cell activation [32]. Limited clinical responses were observed during a phase I clinical trial using this targeting strategy in combination with resiquimod and/or poly-ICLC for the treatment of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma [33]. Targeting of CD40 has also been investigated, with the simultaneous activation of DCs promoting successful cross-presentation [189,190].
Of particular interest are antibodies which enable the exclusive targeting of antigen and/or adjuvant to cross-presenting XCR1+ DCs, due to the subtype-specific expression of their targets. CLEC9A-targeting antibodies bound to tumor-associated antigens have been shown to induce potent CD8+ T cell responses [70,191], which can lead to effective tumor control in mice [31]. Targeting of antigen to the XCR1 receptor allows even greater specificity for the cross-presenting DC subset [192]. Early studies demonstrate enhanced efficiencies of XCL1-bound antigen to induce CD8+ T cell priming compared to untargeted antigen [193], with the potential to modify XCL1 for increased chemotactic effect [159]. Recent studies have demonstrated that gene [194] and protein [159,193,195] antigen-XCL1 fusion complexes can increase antigen-specific CD8+ T cell priming and infiltration into the tumor relative to untargeted antigen, with the potential to modify XCL1 for increased chemotactic effect [159]. This was associated with improved tumor control [159,193,194,195] and could synergize with anti-PD1 treatment [194]. Importantly for translation, Chen et al. demonstrated a human XCL1-Glypican-3 fusion gene immunization protocol could target human XCR1+ DCs both in vitro and in vivo, and induce anti-HCC effects in a HCC-PDC model [194]. The identification of XCR1 as a defining marker of cross-presenting DCs remains relatively recent, and so further advances in our understanding of this subset may reveal additional putative targets [15,16]. For example, unveiling of XCR1+ DC precursors could present targets that will increase the longevity of antigen presentation.

5. Conclusions

Substantial investigation into the basic biology and therapeutic potential of DCs has yielded numerous clinical trials, and yet success thus far has been limited. With the remarkable success of checkpoint blockade, there has been a resurgence of interest in DC-based strategies due to the likelihood of synergy with a combined approach. Here, we have discussed the XCR1+ cross-presenting subset as a potential focus of next-generation DC therapies, due to their specialized ability to prime effector CD8+ T cells and role in mediating anti-tumor responses. Careful consideration on the most effective interventions to enhance migration, activation, maturation and function of XCR1+ DCs is likely to be vital to unleash their full anti-cancer potential.

Author Contributions

K.M.A.: conceptualization, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing. A.M.M.: co-senior author, supervision, conceptualization, writing—review and editing. J.W.: co-senior author, supervision, conceptualization, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The preparation of this review article received no external funding. This work was supported by the Richard Walter Gibbon Medical Research Scholarship and Rachel Kierath Top-Up Scholarship in Pediatric Cancer Research (scholarships to K.M.A.) and the Cancer Council Western Australia (fellowships to A.M.M and J.W.).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the preparation or writing of the manuscript or in the decision to publish this review.

References

  1. Wei, S.C.; Levine, J.H.; Cogdill, A.P.; Zhao, Y.; Anang, N.A.S.; Andrews, M.C.; Sharma, P.; Wang, J.; Wargo, J.A.; Pe’er, D.; et al. Distinct Cellular Mechanisms Underlie Anti-CTLA-4 and Anti-PD-1 Checkpoint Blockade. Cell 2017, 170, 1120–1133.e1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Darvin, P.; Toor, S.M.; Sasidharan Nair, V.; Elkord, E. Immune checkpoint inhibitors: Recent progress and potential biomarkers. Exp. Mol. Med. 2018, 50, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Steinman, R.M.; Cohn, Z.A. Identification of a novel cell type in peripheral lymphoid organs of mice. I. Morphology, quantitation, tissue distribution. J. Exp. Med. 1973, 137, 1142–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Tullett, K.M.; Lahoud, M.H.; Radford, K.J. Harnessing Human Cross-Presenting CLEC9A(+)XCR1(+) Dendritic Cells for Immunotherapy. Front. Immunol. 2014, 5, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Wculek, S.K.; Cueto, F.J.; Mujal, A.M.; Melero, I.; Krummel, M.F.; Sancho, D. Dendritic cells in cancer immunology and immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2020, 20, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Cheever, M.A.; Higano, C.S. PROVENGE (Sipuleucel-T) in prostate cancer: The first FDA-approved therapeutic cancer vaccine. Clin. Cancer Res. 2011, 17, 3520–3526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Kohli, K.; Janssen, A.; Förster, R. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells induce tolerance predominantly by cargoing antigen to lymph nodes. Eur. J. Immunol. 2016, 46, 2659–2668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Audiger, C.; Rahman, M.J.; Yun, T.J.; Tarbell, K.V.; Lesage, S. The Importance of Dendritic Cells in Maintaining Immune Tolerance. J. Immunol. 2017, 198, 2223–2231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. den Haan, J.M.; Lehar, S.M.; Bevan, M.J. CD8(+) but not CD8(-) dendritic cells cross-prime cytotoxic T cells in vivo. J. Exp. Med. 2000, 192, 1685–1696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Merad, M.; Sathe, P.; Helft, J.; Miller, J.; Mortha, A. The dendritic cell lineage: Ontogeny and function of dendritic cells and their subsets in the steady state and the inflamed setting. Ann. Rev. Immunol. 2013, 31, 563–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Wylie, B.; Macri, C.; Mintern, J.D.; Waithman, J. Dendritic Cells and Cancer: From Biology to Therapeutic Intervention. Cancers 2019, 11, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Edelson, B.T.; Kc, W.; Juang, R.; Kohyama, M.; Benoit, L.A.; Klekotka, P.A.; Moon, C.; Albring, J.C.; Ise, W.; Michael, D.G.; et al. Peripheral CD103+ dendritic cells form a unified subset developmentally related to CD8alpha+ conventional dendritic cells. J. Exp. Med. 2010, 207, 823–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Hildner, K.; Edelson, B.T.; Purtha, W.E.; Diamond, M.; Matsushita, H.; Kohyama, M.; Calderon, B.; Schraml, B.U.; Unanue, E.R.; Diamond, M.S.; et al. Batf3 deficiency reveals a critical role for CD8alpha+ dendritic cells in cytotoxic T cell immunity. Science 2008, 322, 1097–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Ginhoux, F.; Liu, K.; Helft, J.; Bogunovic, M.; Greter, M.; Hashimoto, D.; Price, J.; Yin, N.; Bromberg, J.; Lira, S.A.; et al. The origin and development of nonlymphoid tissue CD103+ DCs. J. Exp. Med. 2009, 206, 3115–3130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Dorner, B.G.; Dorner, M.B.; Zhou, X.; Opitz, C.; Mora, A.; Güttler, S.; Hutloff, A.; Mages, H.W.; Ranke, K.; Schaefer, M.; et al. Selective Expression of the Chemokine Receptor XCR1 on Cross-presenting Dendritic Cells Determines Cooperation with CD8+ T Cells. Immunity 2009, 31, 823–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Bachem, A.; Hartung, E.; Güttler, S.; Mora, A.; Zhou, X.; Hegemann, A.; Plantinga, M.; Mazzini, E.; Stoitzner, P.; Gurka, S.; et al. Expression of XCR1 Characterizes the Batf3-Dependent Lineage of Dendritic Cells Capable of Antigen Cross-Presentation. Front. Immunol. 2012, 3, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Bachem, A.; Güttler, S.; Hartung, E.; Ebstein, F.; Schaefer, M.; Tannert, A.; Salama, A.; Movassaghi, K.; Opitz, C.; Mages, H.W.; et al. Superior antigen cross-presentation and XCR1 expression define human CD11c+CD141+ cells as homologues of mouse CD8+ dendritic cells. J. Exp. Med. 2010, 207, 1273–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Huang, A.Y.; Golumbek, P.; Ahmadzadeh, M.; Jaffee, E.; Pardoll, D.; Levitsky, H. Role of bone marrow-derived cells in presenting MHC class I-restricted tumor antigens. Science 1994, 264, 961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Broz, M.L.; Binnewies, M.; Boldajipour, B.; Nelson, A.E.; Pollack, J.L.; Erle, D.J.; Barczak, A.; Rosenblum, M.D.; Daud, A.; Barber, D.L.; et al. Dissecting the tumor myeloid compartment reveals rare activating antigen-presenting cells critical for T cell immunity. Cancer Cell 2014, 26, 638–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Spranger, S.; Gajewski, T.F. A new paradigm for tumor immune escape: β-catenin-driven immune exclusion. J. Immunother. Cancer 2015, 3, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Wylie, B.; Seppanen, E.; Xiao, K.; Zemek, R.; Zanker, D.; Prato, S.; Foley, B.; Hart, P.H.; Kroczek, R.A.; Chen, W.; et al. Cross-presentation of cutaneous melanoma antigen by migratory XCR1+CD103− and XCR1+CD103+ dendritic cells. OncoImmunology 2015, 4, e1019198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Zelenay, S.; van der Veen, A.G.; Böttcher, J.P.; Snelgrove, K.J.; Rogers, N.; Acton, S.E.; Chakravarty, P.; Girotti, M.R.; Marais, R.; Quezada, S.A.; et al. Cyclooxygenase-Dependent Tumor Growth through Evasion of Immunity. Cell 2015, 162, 1257–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Salmon, H.; Idoyaga, J.; Rahman, A.; Leboeuf, M.; Remark, R.; Jordan, S.; Casanova-Acebes, M.; Khudoynazarova, M.; Agudo, J.; Tung, N.; et al. Expansion and Activation of CD103(+) Dendritic Cell Progenitors at the Tumor Site Enhances Tumor Responses to Therapeutic PD-L1 and BRAF Inhibition. Immunity 2016, 44, 924–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Zong, J.; Keskinov, A.A.; Shurin, G.V.; Shurin, M.R. Tumor-derived factors modulating dendritic cell function. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2016, 65, 821–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Barry, K.C.; Hsu, J.; Broz, M.L.; Cueto, F.J.; Binnewies, M.; Combes, A.J.; Nelson, A.E.; Loo, K.; Kumar, R.; Rosenblum, M.D.; et al. A natural killer-dendritic cell axis defines checkpoint therapy-responsive tumor microenvironments. Nat. Med. 2018, 24, 1178–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Böttcher, J.P.; Bonavita, E.; Chakravarty, P.; Blees, H.; Cabeza-Cabrerizo, M.; Sammicheli, S.; Rogers, N.C.; Sahai, E.; Zelenay, S.; Reis e Sousa, C. NK Cells Stimulate Recruitment of cDC1 into the Tumor Microenvironment Promoting Cancer Immune Control. Cell 2018, 172, 1022–1037.e1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Theisen, D.J.; Davidson, J.T.; Briseño, C.G.; Gargaro, M.; Lauron, E.J.; Wang, Q.; Desai, P.; Durai, V.; Bagadia, P.; Brickner, J.R.; et al. WDFY4 is required for cross-presentation in response to viral and tumor antigens. Science 2018, 362, 694–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Mougel, A.; Terme, M.; Tanchot, C. Therapeutic Cancer Vaccine and Combinations With Antiangiogenic Therapies and Immune Checkpoint Blockade. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Roberts, E.W.; Broz, M.L.; Binnewies, M.; Headley, M.B.; Nelson, A.E.; Wolf, D.M.; Kaisho, T.; Bogunovic, D.; Bhardwaj, N.; Krummel, M.F. Critical Role for CD103(+)/CD141(+) Dendritic Cells Bearing CCR7 for Tumor Antigen Trafficking and Priming of T Cell Immunity in Melanoma. Cancer Cell 2016, 30, 324–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Chow, K.T.; Driscoll, C.; Loo, Y.-M.; Knoll, M.; Gale, M., Jr. IRF5 regulates unique subset of genes in dendritic cells during West Nile virus infection. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2019, 105, 411–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sancho, D.; Mourão-Sá, D.; Joffre, O.P.; Schulz, O.; Rogers, N.C.; Pennington, D.J.; Carlyle, J.R.; Reis e Sousa, C. Tumor therapy in mice via antigen targeting to a novel, DC-restricted C-type lectin. J. Clin. Investig. 2008, 118, 2098–2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Tsuji, T.; Matsuzaki, J.; Kelly, M.P.; Ramakrishna, V.; Vitale, L.; He, L.-Z.; Keler, T.; Odunsi, K.; Old, L.J.; Ritter, G.; et al. Antibody-targeted NY-ESO-1 to mannose receptor or DEC-205 in vitro elicits dual human CD8+ and CD4+ T cell responses with broad antigen specificity. J. Immunol. 2011, 186, 1218–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Dhodapkar, M.V.; Sznol, M.; Zhao, B.; Wang, D.; Carvajal, R.D.; Keohan, M.L.; Chuang, E.; Sanborn, R.E.; Lutzky, J.; Powderly, J.; et al. Induction of antigen-specific immunity with a vaccine targeting NY-ESO-1 to the dendritic cell receptor DEC-205. Sci. Transl. Med. 2014, 6, 232ra251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Bevan, M.J. Cross-priming for a secondary cytotoxic response to minor H antigens with H-2 congenic cells which do not cross-react in the cytotoxic assay. J. Exp. Med. 1976, 143, 1283–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Bevan, M.J. Minor H antigens introduced on H-2 different stimulating cells cross-react at the cytotoxic T cell level during in vivo priming. J. Immunol. 1976, 117, 2233–2238. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Jung, S.; Unutmaz, D.; Wong, P.; Sano, G.-I.; De los Santos, K.; Sparwasser, T.; Wu, S.; Vuthoori, S.; Ko, K.; Zavala, F.; et al. In vivo depletion of CD11c+ dendritic cells abrogates priming of CD8+ T cells by exogenous cell-associated antigens. Immunity 2002, 17, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Sigal, L.J.; Crotty, S.; Andino, R.; Rock, K.L. Cytotoxic T-cell immunity to virus-infected non-haematopoietic cells requires presentation of exogenous antigen. Nature 1999, 398, 77–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lenz, L.L.; Butz, E.A.; Bevan, M.J. Requirements for bone marrow-derived antigen-presenting cells in priming cytotoxic T cell responses to intracellular pathogens. J. Exp. Med. 2000, 192, 1135–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Dudziak, D.; Kamphorst, A.O.; Heidkamp, G.F.; Buchholz, V.R.; Trumpfheller, C.; Yamazaki, S.; Cheong, C.; Liu, K.; Lee, H.-W.; Park, C.G.; et al. Differential antigen processing by dendritic cell subsets in vivo. Science 2007, 315, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pooley, J.L.; Heath, W.R.; Shortman, K. Cutting edge: Intravenous soluble antigen is presented to CD4 T cells by CD8- dendritic cells, but cross-presented to CD8 T cells by CD8+ dendritic cells. J. Immunol. 2001, 166, 5327–5330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Schnorrer, P.; Behrens, G.M.N.; Wilson, N.S.; Pooley, J.L.; Smith, C.M.; El-Sukkari, D.; Davey, G.; Kupresanin, F.; Li, M.; Maraskovsky, E.; et al. The dominant role of CD8+ dendritic cells in cross-presentation is not dictated by antigen capture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 10729–10734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Vremec, D.; Pooley, J.; Hochrein, H.; Wu, L.; Shortman, K. CD4 and CD8 expression by dendritic cell subtypes in mouse thymus and spleen. J. Immunol. 2000, 164, 2978–2986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Sun, X.; Jones, H.P.; Dobbs, N.; Bodhankar, S.; Simecka, J.W. Dendritic cells are the major antigen presenting cells in inflammatory lesions of murine Mycoplasma respiratory disease. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e55984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. del Rio, M.-L.; Rodriguez-Barbosa, J.-I.; Kremmer, E.; Förster, R. CD103- and CD103+ bronchial lymph node dendritic cells are specialized in presenting and cross-presenting innocuous antigen to CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. J. Immunol. 2007, 178, 6861–6866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Desch, A.N.; Randolph, G.J.; Murphy, K.; Gautier, E.L.; Kedl, R.M.; Lahoud, M.H.; Caminschi, I.; Shortman, K.; Henson, P.M.; Jakubzick, C.V. CD103+ pulmonary dendritic cells preferentially acquire and present apoptotic cell-associated antigen. J. Exp. Med. 2011, 208, 1789–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Annacker, O.; Coombes, J.L.; Malmstrom, V.; Uhlig, H.H.; Bourne, T.; Johansson-Lindbom, B.; Agace, W.W.; Parker, C.M.; Powrie, F. Essential role for CD103 in the T cell-mediated regulation of experimental colitis. J. Exp. Med. 2005, 202, 1051–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jaensson, E.; Uronen-Hansson, H.; Pabst, O.; Eksteen, B.; Tian, J.; Coombes, J.L.; Berg, P.-L.; Davidsson, T.; Powrie, F.; Johansson-Lindbom, B.; et al. Small intestinal CD103+ dendritic cells display unique functional properties that are conserved between mice and humans. J. Exp. Med. 2008, 205, 2139–2149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Bedoui, S.; Whitney, P.G.; Waithman, J.; Eidsmo, L.; Wakim, L.; Caminschi, I.; Allan, R.S.; Wojtasiak, M.; Shortman, K.; Carbone, F.R.; et al. Cross-presentation of viral and self antigens by skin-derived CD103+ dendritic cells. Nat. Immunol. 2009, 10, 488–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Henri, S.; Poulin, L.F.; Tamoutounour, S.; Ardouin, L.; Guilliams, M.; de Bovis, B.; Devilard, E.; Viret, C.; Azukizawa, H.; Kissenpfennig, A.; et al. CD207+ CD103+ dermal dendritic cells cross-present keratinocyte-derived antigens irrespective of the presence of Langerhans cells. J. Exp. Med. 2010, 207, 189–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Crozat, K.; Guiton, R.; Guilliams, M.; Henri, S.; Baranek, T.; Schwartz-Cornil, I.; Malissen, B.; Dalod, M. Comparative genomics as a tool to reveal functional equivalences between human and mouse dendritic cell subsets. Immunol. Rev. 2010, 234, 177–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jongbloed, S.L.; Kassianos, A.J.; McDonald, K.J.; Clark, G.J.; Ju, X.; Angel, C.E.; Chen, C.-J.J.; Dunbar, P.R.; Wadley, R.B.; Jeet, V.; et al. Human CD141+ (BDCA-3)+ dendritic cells (DCs) represent a unique myeloid DC subset that cross-presents necrotic cell antigens. J. Exp. Med. 2010, 207, 1247–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Poulin, L.F.; Salio, M.; Griessinger, E.; Anjos-Afonso, F.; Craciun, L.; Chen, J.-L.; Keller, A.M.; Joffre, O.; Zelenay, S.; Nye, E.; et al. Characterization of human DNGR-1+ BDCA3+ leukocytes as putative equivalents of mouse CD8alpha+ dendritic cells. J. Exp. Med. 2010, 207, 1261–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Joffre, O.P.; Segura, E.; Savina, A.; Amigorena, S. Cross-presentation by dendritic cells. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2012, 12, 557–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Haniffa, M.; Shin, A.; Bigley, V.; McGovern, N.; Teo, P.; See, P.; Wasan, P.S.; Wang, X.-N.; Malinarich, F.; Malleret, B.; et al. Human tissues contain CD141hi cross-presenting dendritic cells with functional homology to mouse CD103+ nonlymphoid dendritic cells. Immunity 2012, 37, 60–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Collin, M.; Bigley, V. Human dendritic cell subsets: An update. Immunology 2018, 154, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rhodes, J.W.; Tong, O.; Harman, A.N.; Turville, S.G. Human Dendritic Cell Subsets, Ontogeny, and Impact on HIV Infection. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Schiavoni, G.; Mattei, F.; Sestili, P.; Borghi, P.; Venditti, M.; Morse, H.C., 3rd; Belardelli, F.; Gabriele, L. ICSBP is essential for the development of mouse type I interferon-producing cells and for the generation and activation of CD8alpha(+) dendritic cells. J. Exp. Med. 2002, 196, 1415–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Hacker, C.; Kirsch, R.D.; Ju, X.-S.; Hieronymus, T.; Gust, T.C.; Kuhl, C.; Jorgas, T.; Kurz, S.M.; Rose-John, S.; Yokota, Y.; et al. Transcriptional profiling identifies Id2 function in dendritic cell development. Nat. Immunol. 2003, 4, 380–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gurka, S.; Hartung, E.; Becker, M.; Kroczek, R.A. Mouse Conventional Dendritic Cells Can be Universally Classified Based on the Mutually Exclusive Expression of XCR1 and SIRPα. Front. Immunol. 2015, 6, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Jackson, J.T.; Hu, Y.; Liu, R.; Masson, F.; D’Amico, A.; Carotta, S.; Xin, A.; Camilleri, M.J.; Mount, A.M.; Kallies, A.; et al. Id2 expression delineates differential checkpoints in the genetic program of CD8α+ and CD103+ dendritic cell lineages. EMBO J. 2011, 30, 2690–2704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Huysamen, C.; Willment, J.A.; Dennehy, K.M.; Brown, G.D. CLEC9A is a novel activation C-type lectin-like receptor expressed on BDCA3+ dendritic cells and a subset of monocytes. J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283, 16693–16701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Becker, M.; Güttler, S.; Bachem, A.; Hartung, E.; Mora, A.; Jäkel, A.; Hutloff, A.; Henn, V.; Mages, H.W.; Gurka, S.; et al. Ontogenic, Phenotypic, and Functional Characterization of XCR1(+) Dendritic Cells Leads to a Consistent Classification of Intestinal Dendritic Cells Based on the Expression of XCR1 and SIRPα. Front. Immunol. 2014, 5, 326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Crozat, K.; Tamoutounour, S.; Vu Manh, T.-P.; Fossum, E.; Luche, H.; Ardouin, L.; Guilliams, M.; Azukizawa, H.; Bogen, B.; Malissen, B.; et al. Cutting edge: Expression of XCR1 defines mouse lymphoid-tissue resident and migratory dendritic cells of the CD8α+ type. J. Immunol. 2011, 187, 4411–4415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Macri, C.; Pang, E.S.; Patton, T.; O’Keeffe, M. Dendritic cell subsets. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2018, 84, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Hochrein, H.; Shortman, K.; Vremec, D.; Scott, B.; Hertzog, P.; O’Keeffe, M. Differential production of IL-12, IFN-alpha, and IFN-gamma by mouse dendritic cell subsets. J. Immunol. 2001, 166, 5448–5455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Lauterbach, H.; Bathke, B.; Gilles, S.; Traidl-Hoffmann, C.; Luber, C.A.; Fejer, G.; Freudenberg, M.A.; Davey, G.M.; Vremec, D.; Kallies, A.; et al. Mouse CD8alpha+ DCs and human BDCA3+ DCs are major producers of IFN-lambda in response to poly IC. J. Exp. Med. 2010, 207, 2703–2717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Iyoda, T.; Shimoyama, S.; Liu, K.; Omatsu, Y.; Akiyama, Y.; Maeda, Y.; Takahara, K.; Steinman, R.M.; Inaba, K. The CD8+ dendritic cell subset selectively endocytoses dying cells in culture and in vivo. J. Exp. Med. 2002, 195, 1289–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Schulz, O.; Reis e Sousa, C. Cross-presentation of cell-associated antigens by CD8α+ dendritic cells is attributable to their ability to internalize dead cells. Immunology 2002, 107, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shortman, K.; Heath, W.R. The CD8+ dendritic cell subset. Immunol. Rev. 2010, 234, 18–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Caminschi, I.; Proietto, A.I.; Ahmet, F.; Kitsoulis, S.; Shin Teh, J.; Lo, J.C.Y.; Rizzitelli, A.; Wu, L.; Vremec, D.; van Dommelen, S.L.H.; et al. The dendritic cell subtype-restricted C-type lectin Clec9A is a target for vaccine enhancement. Blood 2008, 112, 3264–3273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Segura, E.; Albiston, A.L.; Wicks, I.P.; Chai, S.Y.; Villadangos, J.A. Different cross-presentation pathways in steady-state and inflammatory dendritic cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 20377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Gros, M.; Amigorena, S. Regulation of Antigen Export to the Cytosol During Cross-Presentation. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Embgenbroich, M.; Burgdorf, S. Current Concepts of Antigen Cross-Presentation. Front. Immunol. 2018, 9, 1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Colbert, J.D.; Cruz, F.M.; Rock, K.L. Cross-presentation of exogenous antigens on MHC I molecules. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2020, 64, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Fong, L.; Engleman, E.G. Dendritic cells in cancer immunotherapy. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2000, 18, 245–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Eickhoff, S.; Brewitz, A.; Gerner, M.Y.; Klauschen, F.; Komander, K.; Hemmi, H.; Garbi, N.; Kaisho, T.; Germain, R.N.; Kastenmüller, W. Robust Anti-viral Immunity Requires Multiple Distinct T Cell-Dendritic Cell Interactions. Cell 2015, 162, 1322–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Waithman, J.; Allan, R.S.; Kosaka, H.; Azukizawa, H.; Shortman, K.; Lutz, M.B.; Heath, W.R.; Carbone, F.R.; Belz, G.T. Skin-derived dendritic cells can mediate deletional tolerance of class I-restricted self-reactive T cells. J. Immunol. 2007, 179, 4535–4541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Spranger, S.; Dai, D.; Horton, B.; Gajewski, T.F. Tumor-Residing Batf3 Dendritic Cells Are Required for Effector T Cell Trafficking and Adoptive T Cell Therapy. Cancer Cell 2017, 31, 711–723.e714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Cancel, J.-C.; Crozat, K.; Dalod, M.; Mattiuz, R. Are Conventional Type 1 Dendritic Cells Critical for Protective Antitumor Immunity and How? Front. Immunol. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Tussiwand, R.; Lee, W.-L.; Murphy, T.L.; Mashayekhi, M.; Kc, W.; Albring, J.C.; Satpathy, A.T.; Rotondo, J.A.; Edelson, B.T.; Kretzer, N.M.; et al. Compensatory dendritic cell development mediated by BATF-IRF interactions. Nature 2012, 490, 502–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Yamazaki, C.; Sugiyama, M.; Ohta, T.; Hemmi, H.; Hamada, E.; Sasaki, I.; Fukuda, Y.; Yano, T.; Nobuoka, M.; Hirashima, T.; et al. Critical roles of a dendritic cell subset expressing a chemokine receptor, XCR1. J. Immunol. 2013, 190, 6071–6082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Ruffell, B.; Chang-Strachan, D.; Chan, V.; Rosenbusch, A.; Ho, C.M.T.; Pryer, N.; Daniel, D.; Hwang, E.S.; Rugo, H.S.; Coussens, L.M. Macrophage IL-10 blocks CD8+ T cell-dependent responses to chemotherapy by suppressing IL-12 expression in intratumoral dendritic cells. Cancer Cell 2014, 26, 623–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Lavin, Y.; Kobayashi, S.; Leader, A.; Amir, E.-A.D.; Elefant, N.; Bigenwald, C.; Remark, R.; Sweeney, R.; Becker, C.D.; Levine, J.H.; et al. Innate Immune Landscape in Early Lung Adenocarcinoma by Paired Single-Cell Analyses. Cell 2017, 169, 750–765.e717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Reinhard, K.; Rengstl, B.; Oehm, P.; Michel, K.; Billmeier, A.; Hayduk, N.; Klein, O.; Kuna, K.; Ouchan, Y.; Wöll, S.; et al. An RNA vaccine drives expansion and efficacy of claudin-CAR-T cells against solid tumors. Science 2020, 367, 446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Sánchez-Paulete, A.R.; Cueto, F.J.; Martínez-López, M.; Labiano, S.; Morales-Kastresana, A.; Rodríguez-Ruiz, M.E.; Jure-Kunkel, M.; Azpilikueta, A.; Aznar, M.A.; Quetglas, J.I.; et al. Cancer Immunotherapy with Immunomodulatory Anti-CD137 and Anti-PD-1 Monoclonal Antibodies Requires BATF3-Dependent Dendritic Cells. Cancer Discov. 2016, 6, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Zitvogel, L.; Apetoh, L.; Ghiringhelli, F.; Kroemer, G. Immunological aspects of cancer chemotherapy. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2008, 8, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Galluzzi, L.; Kepp, O.; Kroemer, G. Immunogenic cell death in radiation therapy. OncoImmunology 2013, 2, e26536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Li, X. The inducers of immunogenic cell death for tumor immunotherapy. Tumori J. 2018, 104, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Garg, A.D.; Agostinis, P. Cell death and immunity in cancer: From danger signals to mimicry of pathogen defense responses. Immunol. Rev. 2017, 280, 126–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kroemer, G.; Galluzzi, L.; Kepp, O.; Zitvogel, L. Immunogenic cell death in cancer therapy. Ann. Rev. Immunol. 2013, 31, 51–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. 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. 2007, 13, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Garg, A.D.; Krysko, D.V.; Verfaillie, T.; Kaczmarek, A.; Ferreira, G.B.; Marysael, T.; Rubio, N.; Firczuk, M.; Mathieu, C.; Roebroek, A.J.M.; et al. A novel pathway combining calreticulin exposure and ATP secretion in immunogenic cancer cell death. EMBO J. 2012, 31, 1062–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Ghiringhelli, F.; Apetoh, L.; Tesniere, A.; Aymeric, L.; Ma, Y.; Ortiz, C.; Vermaelen, K.; Panaretakis, T.; Mignot, G.; Ullrich, E.; et al. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome in dendritic cells induces IL-1beta-dependent adaptive immunity against tumors. Nat. Med. 2009, 15, 1170–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Elliott, M.R.; Chekeni, F.B.; Trampont, P.C.; Lazarowski, E.R.; Kadl, A.; Walk, S.F.; Park, D.; Woodson, R.I.; Ostankovich, M.; Sharma, P.; et al. Nucleotides released by apoptotic cells act as a find-me signal to promote phagocytic clearance. Nature 2009, 461, 282–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Yang, Y.; Li, X.-J.; Chen, Z.; Zhu, X.-X.; Wang, J.; Zhang, L.-b.; Qiang, L.; Ma, Y.-j.; Li, Z.-y.; Guo, Q.-L.; et al. Wogonin Induced Calreticulin/Annexin A1 Exposure Dictates the Immunogenicity of Cancer Cells in a PERK/AKT Dependent Manner. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e50811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Vacchelli, E.; Ma, Y.; Baracco, E.E.; Sistigu, A.; Enot, D.P.; Pietrocola, F.; Yang, H.; Adjemian, S.; Chaba, K.; Semeraro, M.; et al. Chemotherapy-induced antitumor immunity requires formyl peptide receptor 1. Science 2015, 350, 972–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Apetoh, L.; Ghiringhelli, F.; Tesniere, A.; Obeid, M.; Ortiz, C.; Criollo, A.; Mignot, G.; Maiuri, M.C.; Ullrich, E.; Saulnier, P.; et al. Toll-like receptor 4-dependent contribution of the immune system to anticancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Nat. Med. 2007, 13, 1050–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Saxena, M.; Bhardwaj, N. Re-Emergence of Dendritic Cell Vaccines for Cancer Treatment. Trends Cancer 2018, 4, 119–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Fu, C.; Jiang, A. Dendritic Cells and CD8 T Cell Immunity in Tumor Microenvironment. Front. Immunol. 2018, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Nefedova, Y.; Huang, M.; Kusmartsev, S.; Bhattacharya, R.; Cheng, P.; Salup, R.; Jove, R.; Gabrilovich, D. Hyperactivation of STAT3 is involved in abnormal differentiation of dendritic cells in cancer. J. Immunol. 2004, 172, 464–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Johnson, D.E.; O’Keefe, R.A.; Grandis, J.R. Targeting the IL-6/JAK/STAT3 signalling axis in cancer. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 15, 234–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Yu, H.; Pardoll, D.; Jove, R. STATs in cancer inflammation and immunity: A leading role for STAT3. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2009, 9, 798–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Tang, M.; Diao, J.; Gu, H.; Khatri, I.; Zhao, J.; Cattral, M.S. Toll-like Receptor 2 Activation Promotes Tumor Dendritic Cell Dysfunction by Regulating IL-6 and IL-10 Receptor Signaling. Cell Rep. 2015, 13, 2851–2864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  104. Ruiz de Galarreta, M.; Bresnahan, E.; Molina-Sánchez, P.; Lindblad, K.E.; Maier, B.; Sia, D.; Puigvehi, M.; Miguela, V.; Casanova-Acebes, M.; Dhainaut, M.; et al. β-Catenin Activation Promotes Immune Escape and Resistance to Anti-PD-1 Therapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Cancer Discov. 2019, 9, 1124–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Liang, Y.; Feng, Y.; Zong, M.; Wei, X.-F.; Lee, J.; Feng, Y.; Li, H.; Yang, G.-S.; Wu, Z.-J.; Fu, X.-D.; et al. β-catenin deficiency in hepatocytes aggravates hepatocarcinogenesis driven by oncogenic β-catenin and MET. Hepatology 2018, 67, 1807–1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Chiba, S.; Baghdadi, M.; Akiba, H.; Yoshiyama, H.; Kinoshita, I.; Dosaka-Akita, H.; Fujioka, Y.; Ohba, Y.; Gorman, J.V.; Colgan, J.D.; et al. Tumor-infiltrating DCs suppress nucleic acid-mediated innate immune responses through interactions between the receptor TIM-3 and the alarmin HMGB1. Nat. Immunol. 2012, 13, 832–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Verronèse, E.; Delgado, A.; Valladeau-Guilemond, J.; Garin, G.; Guillemaut, S.; Tredan, O.; Ray-Coquard, I.; Bachelot, T.; N’Kodia, A.; Bardin-Dit-Courageot, C.; et al. Immune cell dysfunctions in breast cancer patients detected through whole blood multi-parametric flow cytometry assay. Oncoimmunology 2015, 5, e1100791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. O’Garra, A.; Barrat, F.J.; Castro, A.G.; Vicari, A.; Hawrylowicz, C. Strategies for use of IL-10 or its antagonists in human disease. Immunol. Rev. 2008, 223, 114–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Huang, L.-Y.; Reis e Sousa, C.; Itoh, Y.; Inman, J.; Scott, D.E. IL-12 Induction by a Th1-Inducing Adjuvant In Vivo: Dendritic Cell Subsets and Regulation by IL-10. J. Immunol. 2001, 167, 1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Yang, A.S.; Lattime, E.C. Tumor-induced interleukin 10 suppresses the ability of splenic dendritic cells to stimulate CD4 and CD8 T-cell responses. Cancer Res. 2003, 63, 2150–2157. [Google Scholar]
  111. Godefroy, E.; Manches, O.; Dréno, B.; Hochman, T.; Rolnitzky, L.; Labarrière, N.; Guilloux, Y.; Goldberg, J.; Jotereau, F.; Bhardwaj, N. Matrix metalloproteinase-2 conditions human dendritic cells to prime inflammatory T(H)2 cells via an IL-12- and OX40L-dependent pathway. Cancer Cell 2011, 19, 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  112. Brown, G.T.; Murray, G.I. Current mechanistic insights into the roles of matrix metalloproteinases in tumour invasion and metastasis. J. Pathol. 2015, 237, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Gabrilovich, D.; Ishida, T.; Oyama, T.; Ran, S.; Kravtsov, V.; Nadaf, S.; Carbone, D.P. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibits the development of dendritic cells and dramatically affects the differentiation of multiple hematopoietic lineages in vivo. Blood 1998, 92, 4150–4166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Ohm, J.E.; Shurin, M.R.; Esche, C.; Lotze, M.T.; Carbone, D.P.; Gabrilovich, D.I. Effect of vascular endothelial growth factor and FLT3 ligand on dendritic cell generation in vivo. J. Immunol. 1999, 163, 3260–3268. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  115. Cubillos-Ruiz, J.R.; Silberman, P.C.; Rutkowski, M.R.; Chopra, S.; Perales-Puchalt, A.; Song, M.; Zhang, S.; Bettigole, S.E.; Gupta, D.; Holcomb, K.; et al. ER Stress Sensor XBP1 Controls Anti-tumor Immunity by Disrupting Dendritic Cell Homeostasis. Cell 2015, 161, 1527–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Ramakrishnan, R.; Tyurin, V.A.; Veglia, F.; Condamine, T.; Amoscato, A.; Mohammadyani, D.; Johnson, J.J.; Zhang, L.M.; Klein-Seetharaman, J.; Celis, E.; et al. Oxidized lipids block antigen cross-presentation by dendritic cells in cancer. J. Immunol. 2014, 192, 2920–2931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Veglia, F.; Tyurin, V.A.; Mohammadyani, D.; Blasi, M.; Duperret, E.K.; Donthireddy, L.; Hashimoto, A.; Kapralov, A.; Amoscato, A.; Angelini, R.; et al. Lipid bodies containing oxidatively truncated lipids block antigen cross-presentation by dendritic cells in cancer. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 2122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Villablanca, E.J.; Raccosta, L.; Zhou, D.; Fontana, R.; Maggioni, D.; Negro, A.; Sanvito, F.; Ponzoni, M.; Valentinis, B.; Bregni, M.; et al. Tumor-mediated liver X receptor-alpha activation inhibits CC chemokine receptor-7 expression on dendritic cells and dampens antitumor responses. Nat. Med. 2010, 16, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Cauwels, A.; Van Lint, S.; Paul, F.; Garcin, G.; De Koker, S.; Van Parys, A.; Wueest, T.; Gerlo, S.; Van der Heyden, J.; Bordat, Y.; et al. Delivering Type I Interferon to Dendritic Cells Empowers Tumor Eradication and Immune Combination Treatments. Cancer Res. 2018, 78, 463–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Wculek, S.K.; Amores-Iniesta, J.; Conde-Garrosa, R.; Khouili, S.C.; Melero, I.; Sancho, D. Effective cancer immunotherapy by natural mouse conventional type-1 dendritic cells bearing dead tumor antigen. J. Immunol. Ther. Cancer 2019, 7, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Hammerich, L.; Marron, T.U.; Upadhyay, R.; Svensson-Arvelund, J.; Dhainaut, M.; Hussein, S.; Zhan, Y.; Ostrowski, D.; Yellin, M.; Marsh, H.; et al. Systemic clinical tumor regressions and potentiation of PD1 blockade with in situ vaccination. Nat. Med. 2019, 25, 814–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Radford, K.J.; Tullett, K.M.; Lahoud, M.H. Dendritic cells and cancer immunotherapy. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2014, 27, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Garg, A.D.; Coulie, P.G.; Van den Eynde, B.J.; Agostinis, P. Integrating Next-Generation Dendritic Cell Vaccines into the Current Cancer Immunotherapy Landscape. Trends Immunol. 2017, 38, 577–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Melero, I.; Gaudernack, G.; Gerritsen, W.; Huber, C.; Parmiani, G.; Scholl, S.; Thatcher, N.; Wagstaff, J.; Zielinski, C.; Faulkner, I.; et al. Therapeutic vaccines for cancer: An overview of clinical trials. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 11, 509–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. O’Neill, D.W.; Bhardwaj, N. Differentiation of peripheral blood monocytes into dendritic cells. Curr. Protoc. Immunol. 2005, 67, 22F.4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Santos, P.M.; Butterfield, L.H. Dendritic Cell–Based Cancer Vaccines. J. Immunol. 2018, 200, 443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Wimmers, F.; Schreibelt, G.; Sköld, A.E.; Figdor, C.G.; De Vries, I.J.M. Paradigm Shift in Dendritic Cell-Based Immunotherapy: From in vitro Generated Monocyte-Derived DCs to Naturally Circulating DC Subsets. Front. Immunol. 2014, 5, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Lundberg, K.; Albrekt, A.-S.; Nelissen, I.; Santegoets, S.; de Gruijl, T.D.; Gibbs, S.; Lindstedt, M. Transcriptional profiling of human dendritic cell populations and models--unique profiles of in vitro dendritic cells and implications on functionality and applicability. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e52875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. Butterfield, L.H. Dendritic cells in cancer immunotherapy clinical trials: Are we making progress? Front. Immunol. 2013, 4, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Kirkling, M.E.; Cytlak, U.; Lau, C.M.; Lewis, K.L.; Resteu, A.; Khodadadi-Jamayran, A.; Siebel, C.W.; Salmon, H.; Merad, M.; Tsirigos, A.; et al. Notch Signaling Facilitates In Vitro Generation of Cross-Presenting Classical Dendritic Cells. Cell Rep. 2018, 23, 3658–3672.e3656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Zeng, J.; Wang, S. Human dendritic cells derived from embryonic stem cells stably modified with CD1d efficiently stimulate antitumor invariant natural killer T cell response. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2014, 3, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Balan, S.; Dalod, M. In Vitro Generation of Human XCR1(+) Dendritic Cells from CD34(+) Hematopoietic Progenitors. Methods Mol. Biol. 2016, 1423, 19–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Seyfizadeh, N.; Muthuswamy, R.; Mitchell, D.A.; Nierkens, S.; Seyfizadeh, N. Migration of dendritic cells to the lymph nodes and its enhancement to drive anti-tumor responses. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2016, 107, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Anguille, S.; Smits, E.L.; Bryant, C.; Van Acker, H.H.; Goossens, H.; Lion, E.; Fromm, P.D.; Hart, D.N.; Van Tendeloo, V.F.; Berneman, Z.N. Dendritic Cells as Pharmacological Tools for Cancer Immunotherapy. Pharmacol. Rev. 2015, 67, 731–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Bedrosian, I.; Mick, R.; Xu, S.; Nisenbaum, H.; Faries, M.; Zhang, P.; Cohen, P.A.; Koski, G.; Czerniecki, B.J. Intranodal administration of peptide-pulsed mature dendritic cell vaccines results in superior CD8+ T-cell function in melanoma patients. J. Clini. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2003, 21, 3826–3835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Toda, M.; Martuza, R.L.; Rabkin, S.D. Tumor growth inhibition by intratumoral inoculation of defective herpes simplex virus vectors expressing granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. Mol. Ther. 2000, 2, 324–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Mach, N.; Gillessen, S.; Wilson, S.B.; Sheehan, C.; Mihm, M.; Dranoff, G. Differences in dendritic cells stimulated in vivo by tumors engineered to secrete granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor or Flt3-ligand. Cancer Res. 2000, 60, 3239–3246. [Google Scholar]
  138. Bommareddy, P.K.; Patel, A.; Hossain, S.; Kaufman, H.L. Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) and Other Oncolytic Viruses for the Treatment of Melanoma. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2017, 18, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Curran, M.A.; Allison, J.P. Tumor vaccines expressing flt3 ligand synergize with ctla-4 blockade to reject preimplanted tumors. Cancer Res. 2009, 69, 7747–7755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Anandasabapathy, N.; Breton, G.; Hurley, A.; Caskey, M.; Trumpfheller, C.; Sarma, P.; Pring, J.; Pack, M.; Buckley, N.; Matei, I.; et al. Efficacy and safety of CDX-301, recombinant human Flt3L, at expanding dendritic cells and hematopoietic stem cells in healthy human volunteers. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2015, 50, 924–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Diamond, M.S.; Kinder, M.; Matsushita, H.; Mashayekhi, M.; Dunn, G.P.; Archambault, J.M.; Lee, H.; Arthur, C.D.; White, J.M.; Kalinke, U.; et al. Type I interferon is selectively required by dendritic cells for immune rejection of tumors. J. Exp. Med. 2011, 208, 1989–2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Fuertes, M.B.; Kacha, A.K.; Kline, J.; Woo, S.-R.; Kranz, D.M.; Murphy, K.M.; Gajewski, T.F. Host type I IFN signals are required for antitumor CD8+ T cell responses through CD8α+ dendritic cells. J. Exp. Med. 2011, 208, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  143. Lorenzi, S.; Mattei, F.; Sistigu, A.; Bracci, L.; Spadaro, F.; Sanchez, M.; Spada, M.; Belardelli, F.; Gabriele, L.; Schiavoni, G. Type I IFNs control antigen retention and survival of CD8α(+) dendritic cells after uptake of tumor apoptotic cells leading to cross-priming. J. Immunol. 2011, 186, 5142–5150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  144. Tough, D.F. Modulation of T-cell function by type I interferon. Immunol. Cell Biol. 2012, 90, 492–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Schiavoni, G.; Mattei, F.; Gabriele, L. Type I Interferons as Stimulators of DC-Mediated Cross-Priming: Impact on Anti-Tumor Response. Front. Immunol. 2013, 4, 483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  146. Nagato, T.; Lee, Y.-R.; Harabuchi, Y.; Celis, E. Combinatorial immunotherapy of polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid and blockade of programmed death-ligand 1 induce effective CD8 T-cell responses against established tumors. Clin. Cancer Res. 2014, 20, 1223–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Woo, S.-R.; Fuertes, M.B.; Corrales, L.; Spranger, S.; Furdyna, M.J.; Leung, M.Y.K.; Duggan, R.; Wang, Y.; Barber, G.N.; Fitzgerald, K.A.; et al. STING-dependent cytosolic DNA sensing mediates innate immune recognition of immunogenic tumors. Immunity 2014, 41, 830–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Corrales, L.; Glickman, L.H.; McWhirter, S.M.; Kanne, D.B.; Sivick, K.E.; Katibah, G.E.; Woo, S.-R.; Lemmens, E.; Banda, T.; Leong, J.J.; et al. Direct Activation of STING in the Tumor Microenvironment Leads to Potent and Systemic Tumor Regression and Immunity. Cell Rep. 2015, 11, 1018–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  149. Fu, J.; Kanne, D.B.; Leong, M.; Glickman, L.H.; McWhirter, S.M.; Lemmens, E.; Mechette, K.; Leong, J.J.; Lauer, P.; Liu, W.; et al. STING agonist formulated cancer vaccines can cure established tumors resistant to PD-1 blockade. Sci. Transl. Med. 2015, 7, 283ra252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Kim, S.; Li, L.; Maliga, Z.; Yin, Q.; Wu, H.; Mitchison, T.J. Anticancer flavonoids are mouse-selective STING agonists. ACS Chem. Biol. 2013, 8, 1396–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Lara, P.N.; Douillard, J.-Y.; Nakagawa, K.; von Pawel, J.; McKeage, M.J.; Albert, I.; Losonczy, G.; Reck, M.; Heo, D.-S.; Fan, X.; et al. Randomized Phase III Placebo-Controlled Trial of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With or Without the Vascular Disrupting Agent Vadimezan (ASA404) in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 2965–2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Davis, I.D.; Chen, Q.; Morris, L.; Quirk, J.; Stanley, M.; Tavarnesi, M.L.; Parente, P.; Cavicchiolo, T.; Hopkins, W.; Jackson, H.; et al. Blood dendritic cells generated with Flt3 ligand and CD40 ligand prime CD8+ T cells efficiently in cancer patients. J. Immunother. 2006, 29, 499–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Beatty, G.L.; Chiorean, E.G.; Fishman, M.P.; Saboury, B.; Teitelbaum, U.R.; Sun, W.; Huhn, R.D.; Song, W.; Li, D.; Sharp, L.L.; et al. CD40 agonists alter tumor stroma and show efficacy against pancreatic carcinoma in mice and humans. Science 2011, 331, 1612–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  154. Fransen, M.F.; Sluijter, M.; Morreau, H.; Arens, R.; Melief, C.J.M. Local activation of CD8 T cells and systemic tumor eradication without toxicity via slow release and local delivery of agonistic CD40 antibody. Clin. Cancer Res. 2011, 17, 2270–2280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  155. Vonderheide, R.H.; Glennie, M.J. Agonistic CD40 antibodies and cancer therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2013, 19, 1035–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  156. Hou, D.-Y.; Muller, A.J.; Sharma, M.D.; DuHadaway, J.; Banerjee, T.; Johnson, M.; Mellor, A.L.; Prendergast, G.C.; Munn, D.H. Inhibition of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase in dendritic cells by stereoisomers of 1-methyl-tryptophan correlates with antitumor responses. Cancer Res. 2007, 67, 792–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  157. Qian, F.; Villella, J.; Wallace, P.K.; Mhawech-Fauceglia, P.; Tario, J.D.; Andrews, C.; Matsuzaki, J.; Valmori, D.; Ayyoub, M.; Frederick, P.J.; et al. Efficacy of Levo-1-Methyl Tryptophan and Dextro-1-Methyl Tryptophan in Reversing Indoleamine-2,3-Dioxygenase–Mediated Arrest of T-Cell Proliferation in Human Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Cancer Res. 2009, 69, 5498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  158. Lapteva, N.; Huang, X.F. CCL5 as an adjuvant for cancer immunotherapy. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2010, 10, 725–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Matsuo, K.; Kitahata, K.; Kawabata, F.; Kamei, M.; Hara, Y.; Takamura, S.; Oiso, N.; Kawada, A.; Yoshie, O.; Nakayama, T. A Highly Active Form of XCL1/Lymphotactin Functions as an Effective Adjuvant to Recruit Cross-Presenting Dendritic Cells for Induction of Effector and Memory CD8(+) T Cells. Front. Immunol. 2018, 9, 2775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Banchereau, J.; Steinman, R.M. Dendritic cells and the control of immunity. Nature 1998, 392, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Saxena, M.; Bhardwaj, N. Turbocharging vaccines: Emerging adjuvants for dendritic cell based therapeutic cancer vaccines. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2017, 47, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Hong, I.-S. Stimulatory versus suppressive effects of GM-CSF on tumor progression in multiple cancer types. Exp. Mol. Med. 2016, 48, e242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  163. Yan, W.-L.; Shen, K.-Y.; Tien, C.-Y.; Chen, Y.-A.; Liu, S.-J. Recent progress in GM-CSF-based cancer immunotherapy. Immunotherapy 2017, 9, 347–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. McKenna, H.J.; Stocking, K.L.; Miller, R.E.; Brasel, K.; De Smedt, T.; Maraskovsky, E.; Maliszewski, C.R.; Lynch, D.H.; Smith, J.; Pulendran, B.; et al. Mice lacking flt3 ligand have deficient hematopoiesis affecting hematopoietic progenitor cells, dendritic cells, and natural killer cells. Blood 2000, 95, 3489–3497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Maraskovsky, E.; Brasel, K.; Teepe, M.; Roux, E.R.; Lyman, S.D.; Shortman, K.; McKenna, H.J. Dramatic increase in the numbers of functionally mature dendritic cells in Flt3 ligand-treated mice: Multiple dendritic cell subpopulations identified. J. Exp. Med. 1996, 184, 1953–1962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Maraskovsky, E.; Daro, E.; Roux, E.; Teepe, M.; Maliszewski, C.R.; Hoek, J.; Caron, D.; Lebsack, M.E.; McKenna, H.J. In vivo generation of human dendritic cell subsets by Flt3 ligand. Blood 2000, 96, 878–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. O’Keeffe, M.; Hochrein, H.; Vremec, D.; Caminschi, I.; Miller, J.L.; Anders, E.M.; Wu, L.; Lahoud, M.H.; Henri, S.; Scott, B.; et al. Mouse plasmacytoid cells: Long-lived cells, heterogeneous in surface phenotype and function, that differentiate into CD8(+) dendritic cells only after microbial stimulus. J. Exp. Med. 2002, 196, 1307–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  168. Bedoui, S.; Prato, S.; Mintern, J.; Gebhardt, T.; Zhan, Y.; Lew, A.M.; Heath, W.R.; Villadangos, J.A.; Segura, E. Characterization of an Immediate Splenic Precursor of CD8+ Dendritic Cells Capable of Inducing Antiviral T Cell Responses. J. Immunol. 2009, 182, 4200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  169. Saito, T.; Takayama, T.; Osaki, T.; Nagai, S.; Suzuki, T.; Sato, M.; Kuwano, H.; Tahara, H. Combined mobilization and stimulation of tumor-infiltrating dendritic cells and natural killer cells with Flt3 ligand and IL-18 in vivo induces systemic antitumor immunity. Cancer Sci. 2008, 99, 2028–2036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Curtsinger, J.M.; Mescher, M.F. Inflammatory cytokines as a third signal for T cell activation. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2010, 22, 333–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  171. Martins, K.A.O.; Bavari, S.; Salazar, A.M. Vaccine adjuvant uses of poly-IC and derivatives. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2015, 14, 447–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Aznar, M.A.; Planelles, L.; Perez-Olivares, M.; Molina, C.; Garasa, S.; Etxeberría, I.; Perez, G.; Rodriguez, I.; Bolaños, E.; Lopez-Casas, P.; et al. Immunotherapeutic effects of intratumoral nanoplexed poly I:C. J. ImmunoTher. Cancer 2019, 7, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  173. Jiang, Z.; Mak, T.W.; Sen, G.; Li, X. Toll-like receptor 3-mediated activation of NF-kappaB and IRF3 diverges at Toll-IL-1 receptor domain-containing adapter inducing IFN-beta. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 3533–3538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  174. Takeda, K.; Akira, S. TLR signaling pathways. Semin. Immunol. 2004, 16, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Molenkamp, B.G.; van Leeuwen, P.A.M.; Meijer, S.; Sluijter, B.J.R.; Wijnands, P.G.J.T.B.; Baars, A.; van den Eertwegh, A.J.M.; Scheper, R.J.; de Gruijl, T.D. Intradermal CpG-B Activates Both Plasmacytoid and Myeloid Dendritic Cells in the Sentinel Lymph Node of Melanoma Patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 2007, 13, 2961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  176. Ishikawa, H.; Ma, Z.; Barber, G.N. STING regulates intracellular DNA-mediated, type I interferon-dependent innate immunity. Nature 2009, 461, 788–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  177. Burdette, D.L.; Vance, R.E. STING and the innate immune response to nucleic acids in the cytosol. Nat. Immunol. 2013, 14, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Barber, G.N. STING-dependent cytosolic DNA sensing pathways. Trends Immunol. 2014, 35, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Barr, T.A.; McCormick, A.L.; Carlring, J.; Heath, A.W. A potent adjuvant effect of CD40 antibody attached to antigen. Immunology 2003, 109, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  180. Thompson, E.A.; Liang, F.; Lindgren, G.; Sandgren, K.J.; Quinn, K.M.; Darrah, P.A.; Koup, R.A.; Seder, R.A.; Kedl, R.M.; Loré, K. Human Anti-CD40 Antibody and Poly IC:LC Adjuvant Combination Induces Potent T Cell Responses in the Lung of Nonhuman Primates. J. Immunol. 2015, 1500078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Novak, L.; Igoucheva, O.; Cho, S.; Alexeev, V. Characterization of the CCL21-mediated melanoma-specific immune responses and in situ melanoma eradication. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2007, 6, 1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  182. Shields, J.D.; Kourtis, I.C.; Tomei, A.A.; Roberts, J.M.; Swartz, M.A. Induction of lymphoidlike stroma and immune escape by tumors that express the chemokine CCL21. Science 2010, 328, 749–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  183. Sánchez-Paulete, A.R.; Teijeira, Á.; Quetglas, J.I.; Rodríguez-Ruiz, M.E.; Sánchez-Arráez, Á.; Labiano, S.; Etxeberria, I.; Azpilikueta, A.; Bolaños, E.; Ballesteros-Briones, M.C.; et al. Intratumoral Immunotherapy with XCL1 and sFlt3L Encoded in Recombinant Semliki Forest Virus–Derived Vectors Fosters Dendritic Cell–Mediated T-cell Cross-Priming. Cancer Res. 2018, 78, 6643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  184. Diebold, S.S.; Schulz, O.; Alexopoulou, L.; Leitner, W.W.; Flavell, R.A.; Reis e Sousa, C. Role of TLR3 in the immunogenicity of replicon plasmid-based vaccines. Gene Ther. 2009, 16, 359–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Chow, M.T.; Ozga, A.J.; Servis, R.L.; Frederick, D.T.; Lo, J.A.; Fisher, D.E.; Freeman, G.J.; Boland, G.M.; Luster, A.D. Intratumoral Activity of the CXCR3 Chemokine System Is Required for the Efficacy of Anti-PD-1 Therapy. Immunity 2019, 50, 1498–1512.e1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Yan, H.; Kamiya, T.; Suabjakyong, P.; Tsuji, N.M. Targeting C-Type Lectin Receptors for Cancer Immunity. Front. Immunol. 2015, 6, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  187. Bonifaz, L.C.; Bonnyay, D.P.; Charalambous, A.; Darguste, D.I.; Fujii, S.-I.; Soares, H.; Brimnes, M.K.; Moltedo, B.; Moran, T.M.; Steinman, R.M. In vivo targeting of antigens to maturing dendritic cells via the DEC-205 receptor improves T cell vaccination. J. Exp. Med. 2004, 199, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  188. Idoyaga, J.; Lubkin, A.; Fiorese, C.; Lahoud, M.H.; Caminschi, I.; Huang, Y.; Rodriguez, A.; Clausen, B.E.; Park, C.G.; Trumpfheller, C.; et al. Comparable T helper 1 (Th1) and CD8 T-cell immunity by targeting HIV gag p24 to CD8 dendritic cells within antibodies to Langerin, DEC205, and Clec9A. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 2384–2389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  189. Yin, W.; Duluc, D.; Joo, H.; Xue, Y.; Gu, C.; Wang, Z.; Wang, L.; Ouedraogo, R.; Oxford, L.; Clark, A.; et al. Therapeutic HPV Cancer Vaccine Targeted to CD40 Elicits Effective CD8+ T-cell Immunity. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2016, 4, 823–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  190. Yin, W.; Gorvel, L.; Li, D.; Joo, H.; Duluc, D.; Upchurch, K.; Gu, C.; Ouedraogo, R.; Xue, Y.; Wang, Z.; et al. Targeting antigen to CD40 reinforces dendritic cells to cross-prime antigen-specific CD8+ T cells (APP3P.110). J. Immunol. 2015, 194, 113.111. [Google Scholar]
  191. Schreibelt, G.; Klinkenberg, L.J.J.; Cruz, L.J.; Tacken, P.J.; Tel, J.; Kreutz, M.; Adema, G.J.; Brown, G.D.; Figdor, C.G.; de Vries, I.J.M. The C-type lectin receptor CLEC9A mediates antigen uptake and (cross-)presentation by human blood BDCA3+ myeloid dendritic cells. Blood 2012, 119, 2284–2292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  192. Kroczek, R.A.; Henn, V. The Role of XCR1 and its Ligand XCL1 in Antigen Cross-Presentation by Murine and Human Dendritic Cells. Front. Immunol. 2012, 3, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  193. Hartung, E.; Becker, M.; Bachem, A.; Reeg, N.; Jäkel, A.; Hutloff, A.; Weber, H.; Weise, C.; Giesecke, C.; Henn, V.; et al. Induction of potent CD8 T cell cytotoxicity by specific targeting of antigen to cross-presenting dendritic cells in vivo via murine or human XCR1. J. Immunol. 2015, 194, 1069–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Chen, K.; Wu, Z.; Zhao, H.; Wang, Y.; Ge, Y.; Wang, D.; Li, Z.; An, C.; Liu, Y.; Wang, F.; et al. XCL1/glypican-3 fusion gene immunization generates potent antitumor cellular immunity and enhances anti-PD1 efficacy. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2019, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Botelho, N.K.; Tschumi, B.O.; Hubbell, J.A.; Swartz, M.A.; Donda, A.; Romero, P. Combination of Synthetic Long Peptides and XCL1 Fusion Proteins Results in Superior Tumor Control. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Cells 09 00565 g001 550
Figure 1. Critical considerations for DC vaccination. DCs may be isolated from patients or generated in vitro. New protocols designed to specifically generate large amounts of XCR1+ DCs, rather than MoDCs, may prove beneficial. Ex vivo culture with cytokines and/or TLR/STING agonists upregulates maturation markers on antigen-loaded DCs, and increases cytokine and chemokine secretion. Activated XCR1+ DCs are typically injected intradermally, although intranodal improves efficiency of DCs reaching the LNs. Upregulation of CCR7 expression aids in DC migration to the LNs, where they cross-present pre-loaded antigen to naïve CD8+ T cells.
Figure 1. Critical considerations for DC vaccination. DCs may be isolated from patients or generated in vitro. New protocols designed to specifically generate large amounts of XCR1+ DCs, rather than MoDCs, may prove beneficial. Ex vivo culture with cytokines and/or TLR/STING agonists upregulates maturation markers on antigen-loaded DCs, and increases cytokine and chemokine secretion. Activated XCR1+ DCs are typically injected intradermally, although intranodal improves efficiency of DCs reaching the LNs. Upregulation of CCR7 expression aids in DC migration to the LNs, where they cross-present pre-loaded antigen to naïve CD8+ T cells.
Cells 09 00565 g001
Cells 09 00565 g002 550
Figure 2. Schematic of in vivo XCR1+ DC activation to induce tumor cell death. Administration of cytokines, TLR/STING agonists, co-stimulatory molecules, and targeting antibody–antigen complexes can activate migratory (CD103+) XCR1+ DC in the tumor and lymphoid-resident XCR1+ DC. This can promote antigen acquisition, DC maturation, cross-presentation, and recruitment to the tumor site, culminating in increased CD8+ T cell-mediated tumor death.
Figure 2. Schematic of in vivo XCR1+ DC activation to induce tumor cell death. Administration of cytokines, TLR/STING agonists, co-stimulatory molecules, and targeting antibody–antigen complexes can activate migratory (CD103+) XCR1+ DC in the tumor and lymphoid-resident XCR1+ DC. This can promote antigen acquisition, DC maturation, cross-presentation, and recruitment to the tumor site, culminating in increased CD8+ T cell-mediated tumor death.
Cells 09 00565 g002
Table
Table 1. Phenotype of lymphoid-resident and migratory cross-presenting dendritic cells (DCs) in mice and humans.
Table 1. Phenotype of lymphoid-resident and migratory cross-presenting dendritic cells (DCs) in mice and humans.
MOUSEHUMAN
Lymphoid-ResidentMigratoryLymphoid-ResidentMigratory
SURFACE MARKERSCD11c, MHCII, CD8, XCR1, CLEC9A, DEC205, Necl2CD11clow, MHCII, CD103, langerin, XCR1, CLEC9A, DEC205CD11clow, HLA-DR, CD141 (BDCA-3), XCR1, CLEC9A, DEC205, Necl2CD11clow, HLA-DR, CD141hi (BDCA-3), XCR1, CLEC9A, Necl2, CD103 a
DEVELOPMENTAL TF * & CYTOKINESBatf3, IRF8, Id2, Bcl6, NFIL3, Flt3LBatf3, IRF8, Id2, Bcl6, Flt3L, GM-CSFBatf3, IRF8, Id2, Bcl6, FLt3LBatf3, IRF8, Id2, Bcl6
PRR EXPRESSIONTLR-3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, STING, CLEC12ATLR-1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, STING, CLEC12ATLR-3, 8, 10, STING, CLEC12ATLR-3
CYTOKINES & CHEMOKINESIL-12, IFN-λ, CXCL9/10IL-12, CXCL9/10IL-12 (low), type I IFN, IFN-λ, CXCL9/10TNFα, CXCL10
a Only present on intestinal CD141hi cells, with only the SIRPαneg as cross-presenters. * TF = transcription factors. Subset-defining features are in bold. References are located throughout the text.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Audsley, K.M.; McDonnell, A.M.; Waithman, J. Cross-Presenting XCR1+ Dendritic Cells as Targets for Cancer Immunotherapy. Cells 2020, 9, 565. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells9030565

AMA Style

Audsley KM, McDonnell AM, Waithman J. Cross-Presenting XCR1+ Dendritic Cells as Targets for Cancer Immunotherapy. Cells. 2020; 9(3):565. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells9030565

Chicago/Turabian Style

Audsley, Katherine M., Alison M. McDonnell, and Jason Waithman. 2020. "Cross-Presenting XCR1+ Dendritic Cells as Targets for Cancer Immunotherapy" Cells 9, no. 3: 565. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells9030565

APA Style

Audsley, K. M., McDonnell, A. M., & Waithman, J. (2020). Cross-Presenting XCR1+ Dendritic Cells as Targets for Cancer Immunotherapy. Cells, 9(3), 565. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells9030565

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop