Next Article in Journal
Development of a Patient-Derived 3D Immuno-Oncology Platform to Potentiate Immunotherapy Responses in Ascites-Derived Circulating Tumor Cells
Previous Article in Journal
Menin Maintains Cholesterol Content in Colorectal Cancer via Repression of LXR-Mediated Transcription
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Conventional DNA-Damaging Cancer Therapies and Emerging cGAS-STING Activation: A Review and Perspectives Regarding Immunotherapeutic Potential

by
Jordan D. Lewicky
1,
Alexandrine L. Martel
1,
Mukul Raj Gupta
2,
René Roy
2,
Galaxia M. Rodriguez
3,4,
Barbara C. Vanderhyden
3,4 and
Hoang-Thanh Le
1,5,6,*
1
Health Sciences North Research Institute, 56 Walford Road, Sudbury, ON P3E 2H2, Canada
2
Glycosciences and Nanomaterial Laboratory, Université du Québec à Montréal, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, QC H3C 3P8, Canada
3
Cancer Therapeutics Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Rd., Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada
4
Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Rd., Ottawa, ON K1H 8M5, Canada
5
Medicinal Sciences Division, NOSM University, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, ON P3E 2C6, Canada
6
School of Natural Sciences, Laurentian University, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, ON P3E 2C6, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2023, 15(16), 4127; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15164127
Submission received: 11 July 2023 / Revised: 10 August 2023 / Accepted: 11 August 2023 / Published: 16 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Cancer Immunology and Immunotherapy)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The cGAS-STING cellular signaling pathway is a key member of the DNA damage response, whose role is to repair the DNA damage that occurs naturally during the life of a cell. Interestingly, cGAS-STING is known to promote immune responses against tumors, and is being explored for its potential use in cancer immunotherapy applications. The DNA damage caused by traditional cancer treatments such as radiation and chemotherapy is one of the main ways in which cancer cells are eradicated, and is increasingly being linked with cGAS-STING activation. In this review, we summarize the many reports of cGAS-STING activation by different conventional cancer therapies, highlighting the roles of their targets in the DNA damage response. As part of the review, we discuss an emerging “chemoimmunotherapy” concept where the DNA-damaging activity of these conventional therapies can potentially be exploited for its beneficial stimulation of anticancer immune responses by way of cGAS-STING activation. The potential advantages of such an approach are highlighted, and it becomes clear that targeted nanoparticle delivery systems will be critical in minimizing the associated immunotoxic and inflammatory activities of the entrapped chemotherapeutics.

Abstract

Many traditional cancer treatments such as radiation and chemotherapy are known to induce cellular DNA damage as part of their cytotoxic activity. The cGAS-STING signaling axis, a key member of the DNA damage response that acts as a sensor of foreign or aberrant cytosolic DNA, is helping to rationalize the DNA-damaging activity of these treatments and their emerging immunostimulatory capacity. Moreover, cGAS-STING, which is attracting considerable attention for its ability to promote antitumor immune responses, may fundamentally be able to address many of the barriers limiting the success of cancer immunotherapy strategies, including the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Herein, we review the traditional cancer therapies that have been linked with cGAS-STING activation, highlighting their targets with respect to their role and function in the DNA damage response. As part of the review, an emerging “chemoimmunotherapy” concept whereby DNA-damaging agents are used for the indirect activation of STING is discussed as an alternative to the direct molecular agonism strategies that are in development, but have yet to achieve clinical approval. The potential of this approach to address some of the inherent and emerging limitations of cGAS-STING signaling in cancer immunotherapy is also discussed. Ultimately, it is becoming clear that in order to successfully employ the immunotherapeutic potential of the cGAS-STING axis, a balance between its contrasting antitumor and protumor/inflammatory activities will need to be achieved.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Traditional strategies in the treatment of cancer include surgical resection, radiation, chemotherapy, or some combination thereof. Surgery is not an option for many cancers, and in those cases where it is possible, success relies on both the ability of the patient to survive the surgery and the ability of the surgeon to completely remove all of the diseased tissues [1]. Radiation and chemotherapy serve to eradicate malignant cells; however, these treatments are not selective, causing off-target toxicity in healthy tissues that leads to significant undesired side effects and the potential for highly dangerous immunosuppression [2]. In addition, in cases where chemotherapy fails to completely eradicate the cancer, there is significant risk for the development of resistance to the treatment, increasing the risk of both metastasis and disease relapse [3].
Cancer immunotherapy, which has attracted considerable attention in recent years, aims to sensitize the patient’s immune system to the disease for its selective eradication [4]. Various immunotherapy strategies continue to be explored, with several having gained clinical approval [5]. Most prevalent among the clinically approved immunotherapies are checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which modulate the aberrant regulation that prevents the immune system from attacking cancer cells [6]. Unfortunately, the benefits of ICIs are limited to specific cohorts of patients who have inherently higher T cell levels at the tumor site [7]. ICIs also suffer from other limitations, including the development of treatment resistance, and toxicity that arises from the disruption of the natural homeostatic balance of the immune system [8]. Ultimately hindering the success of any cancer immunotherapy is the tumor microenvironment (TME), which dynamically regulates therapeutic responses and contributes to treatment resistance [9]. Large populations of immunosuppressive cells, including tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and regulatory T cells (Tregs), contribute to a non-inflamed “cold” TME, which limits the infiltration and activity of T cells within the tumor [10]. In addition, down-regulation of major histocompatibility complex class 1 (MHC-1) immune ligand expression on the surface of cancer cells significantly hampers the potential for immunosurveillance [11,12]. Thus, there is a considerable need for novel immunotherapy strategies that can induce an inflamed “hot” TME that promotes cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) and natural killer (NK) cell responses by way of balancing TME immunosuppressive effects, increasing tumor immunogenicity via enhanced tumor-associated antigen presentation, and increasing the trafficking and infiltration of T cells into the tumor [13,14].
The stimulator of interferon genes (STING) cellular signaling pathway is emerging as a promising immunotherapeutic target to combat the immunosuppressive TME [15]. The STING pathway is an important player in the DNA damage response (DDR) and is involved in monitoring the cytosol of cells for the presence of foreign or damaged DNA, a distress signal that arises from a multitude of potential threats [16]. The STING protein is activated by the cyclic dinucleotide (CDN) 2′3′-cyclic guanosine monophosphate–adenosine monophosphate (cGAMP), a second messenger molecule that is produced by cGAMP synthase (cGAS) after it detects the presence of cytosolic double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) [17,18]. The recognition of dsDNA by cGAS is mostly sequence-independent, with the minimal length for cGAS activation being 20–40 base pairs and varying between species [19,20]. Upon binding cGAMP, the STING homodimer undergoes extensive conformational rearrangements and oligomerization, and ultimately translocates from the endoplasmic reticulum to the Golgi body (Figure 1) [21,22,23,24]. The recruitment and activation of TANK-binding kinase 1 (TBK1) by autophosphorylation leads to the phosphorylation of STING [25,26]. The resulting STING–TBK1 complex phosphorylates interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3), leading to its homodimerization and nuclear translocation, where it induces target gene expression [27,28]. The downstream effects of STING pathway activation are variable, and are dependent on the particular cell type, as well as the intensity and duration of activation [29]. However, a characteristic of STING pathway signaling is the secretion of type I IFNs [30,31,32]. In some settings, STING signaling can also be associated with the activation of nuclear factor κB (NFκB), mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinases, and signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) transcription factors [33,34,35,36,37].
Type I IFNs directly regulate the transcription of over 100 genes that influence many key aspects of cell survival and immunity [38]. In the cancer setting, type I IFNs have been shown to directly inhibit the proliferation of tumor cells [39,40,41], and disrupt tumor vasculature [42,43]. While the production of type I IFNs is a critical component of STING signaling for promoting antitumor immunity, the other IFN-independent signaling pathways downstream of STING activation also play a key role in cancer immune regulation [44]. Taken together, the cancer immunotherapeutic potential of STING signaling arises from its capacity to promote a wide array of antitumor immune responses (Figure 2) [45]. STING activation promotes the maturation of professional antigen-presenting cells (APCs), leading them to express various costimulatory molecules and pro-inflammatory cytokines required for T cell priming and activation [46,47,48,49]. Both T helper lymphocyte (Th) [50,51] and CTL [52,53] responses are known to be enhanced by STING-induced APC maturation [54,55]. Furthermore, a balanced type 1/type 2 (Th1/Th2), or even Th1 biased phenotype [56] have been reported in response to STING-induced IFN signaling, thereby promoting M1 macrophage polarization [57,58]. Compared to M2 macrophages, which are known to be immunosuppressive, M1 macrophages are more supportive of antitumor immune responses [59,60,61]. STING-induced pro-inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin 6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), as well as reactive nitrogen and oxygen species (ROS), can promote M1 macrophage polarization and the repolarization of immunosuppressive TAMs [59,62,63]. STING signaling also generates a chemokine gradient, including CXCL10, CCL5, and CXCL9, that can guide the recruitment and activation of T cells [52,64,65] and NK cells [66] within the tumor. STING signaling promotes MHC-1 expression on the cancer cell surface that is required for CTL recognition and eradication [67]. Furthermore, STING signaling has been shown to upregulate expression of the ligands of NK group 2, member D (NKG2D), an NK cell-specific immunoreceptor necessary for the recognition and elimination of cancer cells [68].
The promising immunostimulatory potential of the STING pathway has fueled considerable efforts geared towards the development of STING agonist therapeutics (Figure 1A) (reviewed in [69]). STING agonists have shown success for generating antitumor immunity against a wide range of cancer types in preclinical research, prompting numerous clinical trials (reviewed in [15]). However, both the safety and efficacy of STING agonists are limited by numerous pharmacological and drug delivery challenges, including metabolic stability issues, low cellular uptake/intracellular delivery, and the potential for immune-related adverse events including cytotoxicity [70,71]. Another major concern in the development of STING agonists is systemic administration, and the lack of tissue or cell specificity. In addition to cancer cells, STING is expressed in many other cell types that may have adverse responses impacting therapeutic outcomes [72]. While STING activation in extratumoral cell populations may result in antitumor effects, the ideal location for STING activation is within the tumor site, where it can generate the necessary local immunostimulatory effects [73]. Restricting systemic-wide STING activation is necessary to minimize nonspecific systemic inflammatory responses [74]. Ultimately, while STING pathway agonists offer considerable promise for cancer immunotherapy, none have yet gained clinical approval.
Despite the promising immunotherapeutic potential of the STING pathway for cancer treatment, there are several critical and inherent concerns. The duration of STING pathway stimulation is an important consideration, as it can drastically influence the balance of immunological outcomes. Localized and acute activation of the STING pathway supports an appropriate level of immune activation for cancer eradication. However, chronic STING signaling is implicated in a variety of inflammation-driven diseases [75]. In addition, prolonged STING pathway activation can also lead to cancer development and metastasis [76,77,78,79]. While the production of type I IFNs is a critical component of STING-signaling-induced antitumor immunity, recent studies have suggested that type I IFNs may actually impair anticancer immunity and cause treatment resistance. For example, IFN-β has been shown to increase the levels of programmed cell death ligands 1 (PD-L1) and 2 (PD-L2), which are known to contribute to immune escape by cancer cells [80,81]. Type I IFNs have also been shown to contribute to unexpected immune toxicity during cancer immunotherapy [82]. In addition, the other IFN-independent signaling pathways downstream of STING activation also play a key role in immune regulation, and can contribute to tumor immune evasion [44,83].
It has been known for some time that traditional cancer treatments such as radiation and chemotherapy have beneficial immunostimulatory effects that continue to be reported [84]. These cancer treatments stimulate aspects of both the innate and adaptive immune systems via several different mechanisms. The cytotoxic activity of radiation and chemotherapy have been linked to the induction of immunogenic cell death, which leads to the release of specific signals that trigger the phagocytosis of cellular debris and the maturation of APC [85]. In addition, these traditional cancer treatments have been reported to alleviate tumor-induced immunosuppressive mechanisms [86,87,88], and cause transient lymphodepletion that allows for localized immune cell replenishment [89]. Mechanistically, common to the majority of these traditional cancer treatments is their DNA-damaging activity, which ultimately leads to their cytotoxicity. Opposing this activity is the DDR, which is a highly organized network of interconnected components that are responsible for the repair of damaged DNA and the maintenance of genomic stability [90]. Defects in the DDR lead to an imbalance between DNA damage and repair that can drive tumorigenesis, inflammatory cytokine secretion, and aberrant immune responses [91]. Emerging evidence is outlining the critical link between the DDR and antitumor immunity, in that it shapes the innate immune response and how the adaptive immune system is recruited to tumors [92]. Most immune-related DDR components and immune responses converge upon the STING-IFN signaling pathway [93]. It is not surprising then, that many of the traditional, DNA-damaging cancer treatments are being linked with indirect and iatrogenic STING activation (Figure 1B). However, the significance of said STING activation in cancer patients and potential immunotherapeutic applications are currently unclear.
In this review, we summarize the many different conventional cancer therapies reported to activate the cGAS-STING signaling axis. We discuss the targets of these therapies in relation to their role and function in the DDR. In our summary, we pay particular attention to the doses used, given the potential of these therapies to be toxic and damaging to the immune system. Despite this potential of adverse immunological effects, an emerging concept of a “chemoimmunotherapy” strategy in which DNA-damaging agents are used for an indirect activation of STING is discussed, which aligns with our own results that are included in the review. The potential of this approach to address some of the inherent and emerging limitations of the cGAS-STING axis in cancer immunotherapy is considered, where it becomes evident that low doses of the DNA-damaging agent will be required to avoid detrimental immunotoxicity, and will need to be supported with the use of targeted nanoparticle delivery systems.

2. Conventional Cancer Therapies and cGAS-STING Activation

In general, the different classes of conventional cancer therapies that have been linked with activation of the cGAS-STING signaling axis can be classified into three categories (Table 1), the chemical structures of which are shown in the Supplemental Table S1: (i) microtubule-targeting antimitotic agents, (ii) inhibitors of DDR enzymes that damage DNA indirectly, and (iii) agents that directly damage DNA.

2.1. Antimitotic Agents

Microtubule-targeting agents (MTAs), such as Taxol, have been used extensively for the treatment of rapidly dividing cancers, and cause cell death by inducing mitotic arrest and eventual apoptosis [121]. While MTAs do not directly interact with DNA or members of the DDR, their activity has been linked with the induction of limited degrees of DNA damage resulting from the partial activation of apoptosis and its associated nucleases [122,123]. MTAs are also known to disrupt the intracellular trafficking of various DNA repair proteins, thus augmenting the toxicity of DNA-damaging chemotherapies which is the basis for their combination as a common anticancer regimen [124].
Zierhut et al. demonstrated that Taxol-induced mitotic arrest in the HeLa cervical cancer cell line resulted in a slow accumulation of IRF3 phosphorylation in a cGAS-dependent manner [94]. This triggered apoptosis via the transcription-independent release of BCL-xL-dependent suppression of mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization. The authors went on to demonstrate that histone-wrapped nucleosomic DNA had a higher affinity for cGAS than naked DNA, and prevented cytoplasmic chromosomal DNA from activating cGAS during normal mitosis by competitive inhibition. In addition, the cGAS expression level was shown to correlate with Taxol sensitivity in a panel of breast cancer cell lines, and promoted the response to Taxol in a mouse xenograft model of cervical cancer. Lohard et al. showed that Taxol induced DNA micronuclei in breast cancer cell lines and patient-derived mouse xenografts that led to the downstream activation of the cGAS-STING pathway [95]. The resulting secretion of type I IFN and TNF-α formed a proapoptotic paracrine secretome, which triggered NOXA expression in neighboring cells, and increased their sensitivity to the inhibition of BCL-xL. Hu et al. demonstrated that cytotoxic doses of Taxol induced cGAS-positive micronucleation and subsequent STING signaling in various triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cell lines [96]. The resulting cytokines and chemokines from this response were able to induce a M1-like polarization of THP-1 derived macrophages in vitro. The authors further showed that similar doses of other MTAs, including vinorelbine and eribulin, also induced cGAS-positive micronucleation; however, evidence of subsequent downstream STING signaling was not provided. In a somewhat contradictory report to that of Hu et al., Fermaintt et al. showed that cytotoxic doses of eribulin, but not Taxol, induced cGAS-STING-depended expression of type I IFNs in both myeloid and TNBC cells in vitro [97]. The cGAS-STING pathway activation by eribulin was further demonstrated to be mediated by the accumulation of cytoplasmic mitochondrial DNA. Overall, while these results suggest there may be the potential that MTAs, in general, may be able to activate the cGAS-STING signaling pathway via the DNA damage they induce, further work will need to confirm this.

2.2. DDR Inhibitors

2.2.1. Topoisomerase Inhibitors

Topoisomerases are enzymes that catalyze changes in the intertwined double-helical structure of DNA [125]. They are critical for transcription, replication, and DNA repair [125,126]. There are two classes of topoisomerases, which differ in the mechanism by which they facilitate the transient breakage of DNA strands. Topoisomerase I (Topo I) catalyzes changes in DNA structure via single-strand breaks (SSB), whereas topoisomerase II (Topo II) functions through double-strand breaks (DSB) [127]. Topoisomerase inhibitors, such as camptothecin, topotecan, doxorubicin, and daunorubicin, are used as both antibacterials and chemotherapeutics, where they interfere with the catalytic cycle of the enzyme and lead to elevated levels of covalent enzyme–DNA complexes [128]. Ultimately, irreversible DNA damage results in having highly prevalent DSB occurring upon collision of the replicative machinery with drug-stabilized topoisomerase–DNA complexes [129]. Lymphodepletion is one of the most common side effects associated with topoisomerase inhibitors, and may result in detrimental immunosuppression [130].
Pépin et al. showed that low doses of the topo I inhibitor camptothecin induced minor levels of DNA damage that resulted in a strong cGAS-STING-dependent antiviral gene response in viral oncogene-expressing mouse embryonic fibroblast cells [98]. The viral oncogenes were further shown to potentiate the leakage of damaged DNA into the cytoplasm, which was critical for subsequent cGAS recruitment. As part of a chemoimmunotherapy strategy, Cao et al. developed a hybrid prodrug made up of both camptothecin and the alkylating agent cisplatin to specifically promote DNA damage-associated STING activation in tumor cells [99]. Encompassing the chemotherapy hybrid was a ROS-sensitive polymeric nanoparticle, which improved the delivery, DNA-damaging activity, and subsequent cGAS-STING pathway activation in several cancer cell lines in vitro. In addition, the system activated T lymphocytes, promoted CD8+ T cell transformation into memory cells, and induced strong adaptive antitumor immune responses in an in vivo murine colorectal cancer model. The authors did not demonstrate the degree to which degree each DNA-damaging agent contributed to the overall cGAS-STING-driven response. Working with a camptothecin derivative (7-ethyl-10-hydroxycamptothecis, SN38), Zhao et al. demonstrated that the compound induced DNA damage in tumor cells which resulted in the passage of DNA-containing exosomes to APCs and subsequent cGAS-STING pathway activation [100]. The SN38 was incorporated into a polymeric conjugate capable of self-assembly into nanoparticles, which not only reduced the toxicity of the drug, but also improved its ability to activate the cGAS-STING pathway and induce strong antitumor immune responses in an in vivo murine model of breast cancer. Another example of a camptothecin derivative is topotecan, which was shown by Kitai et al. to trigger STING-dependent DC activation and cytokine release [101]. Various cancer cell lines treated with cytotoxic doses of the drug released DNA-containing exosomes that were taken up by DCs in a paracrine fashion. In an in vivo mouse model of breast cancer, topotecan induced significant antitumor immune responses that were driven by the infiltration of activated DCs and CD8+ T cells.
Luthra et al. demonstrated that non-cytotoxic doses of the topo II inhibitors doxorubicin and daunorubicin triggered a cGAS-STING-dependent IFN induction in HEK 293T and A549 cells expressing the Ebola virus VP35 protein [102]. The response induced by these compounds was further shown to inhibit Ebola virus replication in vitro. With cytotoxic doses of the topo II inhibitor etoposide, Wang et al. demonstrated an induction of DNA damage that resulted in both STING-dependent type I IFN signaling, and NF-κB activation in various cancer cell lines in vitro [103]. They went on to demonstrate activated antitumor T cell responses, both in vitro and in vivo, which potentiated the antitumor efficacy of anti-PD1 antibody treatments in several different mouse tumor models. Interestingly, Dunphy et al. demonstrated that non-cytotoxic dose of etoposide induced an early non-canonical activation of STING in HaCaT keratinocytes that was independent of cGAS [104]. No production of the cGAMP second messenger, nor STING phosphorylation or translocation from the ER were observed. The DNA repair proteins ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) were required for the induction of this innate immune response, together with the DNA binding protein gamma-interferon-inducible protein 16 (IFI16), p54, and the E3 ubiquitin ligase TRAF6. The resulting signaling complex yielded an alternative STING-dependent expression program predominantly skewed towards NFκB signaling, with only a minor contribution from IRF3.

2.2.2. PARP Inhibitors

The PARP family of proteins are involved in a variety of cellular processes that include chromatin remodeling, as well as the transcription, replication, and repair of DNA damage [131]. The main role of PARP in the DDR is the recruitment of other DNA-repairing enzymes via the synthesis of a polymeric ADP-ribose chain signal after detecting DNA damage [132]. PARPs are involved in the base-excision repair of DNA SSB and the resection of DSB via both HR and non-homologous end joining mechanisms [133,134]. The DNA repair activity of certain PARP proteins is exploited for survival by certain cancers that are defective in homologous repair (HR) mechanisms, and are therefore sensitive to its inhibition [135]. Several PARP inhibitors (PARPi), such as olaparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib, have been approved as targeted chemotherapeutics for the treatment of cancers with mutations in the essential HR genes breast-cancer-associated 1 and 2 (BRCA1 and BRCA2), where the resulting accumulation of DNA DSB leads to genomic instability and eventual cell death [136]. While PARP-inhibitor-induced DNA damage is known to have beneficial immunostimulatory effects, which include the activation of the cGAS-STING pathway as discussed below, PARP inhibitors also upregulate immunosuppressive PD-L1 [132].
Chabanon et al. demonstrated that cytotoxic doses of the PARPis olaparib and rucaparib induced DNA damage and cGAS-STING-dependent type I IFN signaling in both a BRCA1-deficient TNBC cell line, and lung cancer cells lacking the excision repair cross-complementation groups 1 (ERCC1) protein, a common DDR defect in non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC) [105]. They also showed that the PARPis modulated the IFN-γ-induced PD-L1 expression in both NSCLC cell lines and patient tumor cells, an effect that was enhanced by ERCC1 deficiency. With cytotoxic doses of olaparib, Ding et al. showed that PARP inhibition induced strong local and systemic antitumor immune responses involving both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in mice bearing BRCA1-deficient ovarian tumors [106]. The authors demonstrated that the effect was driven by a STING-dependent type I IFN response from APCs that sensed either DNA fragments or cGAMP induced in the tumor cells. Using a genetically engineered mouse model of TNBC, Pantelidou et al. showed that Olaparib induced CD8+ T cell infiltration and activation that resulted in strong antitumor immunity [107]. This response was diminished when CD8+ T cells were depleted, and was shown to be dependent on paracrine DC activation from cGAS-STING signaling in tumor cells. Using olaparib at doses in the IC50 range, the authors demonstrated that this effect was more prominent in HR-deficient than HR-proficient TNBC cells in vitro, and further confirmed this observation in vivo. Reisländer et al. demonstrated a dose-dependent induction of DNA DSB with olaparib in a H1229 NSCLC model possessing an inducible depletion of BRCA2 [108]. The BRCA2-deficient cells were more susceptible to olaparib induced DNA damage, which resulted in a rapid activation of an innate immune response involving increases in the mRNA levels of several interferon-stimulated genes (ISG). It is suggested that this response is conceivably from cGAS-STING activation; however, no direct evidence was provided. Shen et al. showed that cytostatic doses of talazoparib generated cytosolic dsDNA and activated cGAS-STING signaling in various gynecological cancer cell lines in vitro [109]. This activity was further confirmed in vivo in a mouse ID8 ovarian cancer model where strong antitumor immunity was induced independent of BRCA status. The authors further showed that talazoparib treatment triggered ISG expression in orthotopic xenograft mouse models of BRCA1-deficient TNBC and BRCA2-deficient colorectal cancer.

2.2.3. Ataxia Telangiectasia and Rad3-Related (ATR) and ATM Inhibitors

ATR and ATM are critical signaling kinases in the DDR that are activated in response to DNA SSB and DSB, respectively [137,138]. They have pivotal roles in coordinating the DDR and the cell cycle to prevent replications stress. ATR is recruited to replication protein A (RPA)-coated single-stranded DNA via the ATR-interacting protein (ATRIP) [139,140], where it activates its major downstream effector, checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1), which triggers intra-S and G2/M phase checkpoints [141]. ATM is recruited to DSB by the MRN complex [142], where it activates p53 by both phosphorylating it (Ser 15) and eliminating the inhibitory binding of the E3 ubiquitin ligase MDM2, which inhibits CDK2/cyclin E to induce cell cycle arrest at the G1 phase checkpoint [137]. Many chemotherapeutic agents induce an activation of ATR, which has been the rationale for its therapeutic inhibition [143,144].
While ATR and ATM inhibitors do not damage DNA directly, they have been shown to modulate immune responses induced by both radiotherapy [110,111,145,146] and DNA-damaging chemotherapies [147,148]. The combination treatment of radiotherapy and ATR or ATM inhibition was shown to induce both type I and type II IFN-associated gene responses, as well as increase CD8+ T cell infiltration [110,111,145,146]. There is emerging evidence that this activity may be due, in part, to cGAS-STING activation. Sheng et al. showed that the ATR inhibitor ceralasertib (AZD6738) increased the degree of radiotherapy-induced CD8+ T cell infiltration and activation in a mouse xenograft model of hepatocellular carcinoma, while also decreasing the immunosuppressive effects of the radiation on numbers of intratumoral Tregs and exhausted T cells [110]. The authors also showed that the addition of ATR inhibitor to an anti-PDL1 radioimmunotherapy program produced a cGAS-STING-dependent synergistic effect with increased infiltration, proliferation, and IFN-γ production from tumor infiltrating CD8+ T cells, as well as decreased numbers of tumor resident Tregs and exhausted T cells. Using the ATM inhibitor KU60019, Zhang et al. demonstrated a cooperative activity with radiotherapy to induce type I IFN signaling in human and mouse pancreatic cancer cell lines in a manner that was independent of cGAS-STING, but dependent on both TBK1 and the proto-oncogene tyrosine protein kinase SRC [111]. The combination of ATM inhibition and radiotherapy was further shown to increase PDL-1 expression and tumor sensitivity to anti-PDL-1 therapy in a mouse model of pancreatic cancer, accompanied by an increased tumoral infiltration of CD8+ T cells that established immunological memory. Hu et al. showed a potent cGAS-STING pathway activation with the ATM inhibitors AZD1390 and KU55933 in both human breast cancer and mouse melanoma cells [112]. The authors linked the resulting increase in phosphor-TBK1 levels and ISG expression with down-regulation of mitochondrial transcription factor A, and subsequent cytoplasmic leakage of mitochondrial DNA.

2.2.4. RNA Polymerase Inhibitors

RNA polymerases (RNAPs) are key to the transcription process, the continuity of which can be disrupted by lesions in the DNA template that result from damaging events [149]. Depending of the type of lesion, it may be correctly bypassed by RNAP; otherwise, transcriptional stalling or mutagenesis occurs [150]. In fact, stalled RNAP acts as a sensor of DNA damage, where it initiates a transcription-coupled repair that plays a critical role in the maintenance of genome integrity [149]. In addition, RNAPs are active components of cellular DNA damage checkpoints and the initiation of apoptosis [150]. Given their vital role in cellular protein production, RNAPs are an emerging and promising target for chemotherapeutic transcription inhibition in cancer cells [151].
Cornelison et al. demonstrated that the treatment of various ovarian cancer cell lines with the RNAP I inhibitor CX-5461 induced a rapid accumulation of cytosolic DNA and activation of the DDR through ATM/ATR kinases [113]. Transcriptional upregulation of STING was also observed, as well as a cGAS-STING-dependent IRF3 phosphorylation and type I IFN response, both in vitro and in vivo in mouse xenograft ovarian cancer models. DNA damage induced by CX-5461 was previously reported to be a result of its ability to stabilize G-quadruplex DNA structures [152] that block the progression of RNAP I, eventually leading to single-strand DNA gaps or breaks [153].

2.3. DNA-Damaging Agents

2.3.1. Ionizing Radiation

The cytotoxicity of ionizing radiation is directly linked to its DNA-damaging activity [154]. The most significant type of DNA damage induced by the fractionated radiation doses conventionally used in radiotherapy is DSB [155], the yield of which increases proportionally with doses starting from as low as a few mGy [156]. While radiation at high doses is known to be highly immunosuppressive owing to the radiosensitivity of the lymphoid system [157], there continues to be emerging evidence that local tumor irradiation can improve both the immunogenicity of tumor cells and promote antitumor immune responses [114]. It logically follows that the DNA fragments, which result from radiation-induced DSB, have been linked with the induction of the cGAS-STING signaling axis (reviewed in [114]). While the resulting type I IFN production within tumor cells or DCs has been shown to facilitate the stimulation of CD8+ T cells for tumor eradiation, there are also undesirable effects that have been associated with radiation-induced cGAS-STING signaling, including increased metastasis and damage to non-cancerous tissues [158]. Ultimately, further investigation is needed to delineate all of the consequences of radiation-induced cGAS-STING activation in the treatment of cancer, and its potential to be exploited for immunotherapeutic purposes.

2.3.2. Alkylating Agents

Alkylating reagents react with and damage DNA through the covalent attachment of an alkyl group on the electron-rich nitrogen atoms of the purine ring of guanine bases [159]. The most common alkyl group added is a single-carbon methyl group; however, longer hydrocarbons can also be added [160]. Monofunctional alkylating agents react with only one strand of the DNA double helix, whereas those that are bifunctional react at sites on both strands to produce a crosslink [161]. When not repaired, either type of lesion will prevent DNA replication during cellular division, and will eventually lead to cell death [162]. In addition to being carcinogenic themselves, most alkylating agents suffer from dose-limiting toxicity to the bone marrow, which is associated with both humoral and cellular immunosuppression [159].
As alluded to earlier, the cGAS-STING pathway is also activated by cytosolic mitochondrial DNA in addition to DNA derived from pathogens or damaging events [163,164]. Maekawa et al. showed that cisplatin treatment of renal tubular cells induced mitochondrial DNA leakage into the cytosol, which subsequently activated cGAS-STING signaling [115]. The resulting STING-dependent inflammatory response was further shown to promote the progression of acute kidney injury in a genetically engineered mouse of model exploiting the known dose-dependent nephrotoxicity of cisplatin [165,166]. Parkes et al. showed that the DNA damage induced by the treatment of HeLa cells with cisplatin at the IC50 concentration increased the amount of cytosolic DNA and activated cGAS, as measured by the cytoplasmic levels of the enzyme bound to the Histone H3 immunoprecipitate [116]. The cisplatin treatment increased the mRNA levels of the CXCL10 and CCL5 chemokines in a STING- and cGAS-dependent fashion. Both CXCL10 and CCL5 are known to have an IRF3 binding motif within their promoter regions [162], and their overexpression has been associated with higher levels of CD8+ T cells in melanoma, gastric, and colorectal tumors [167,168,169,170]. The authors also noted increased expression of PD-L1 mRNA. With low doses, Zhou et al. showed that carboplatin induced DNA damage in the H3122 lung cancer cell line, which activated both canonical STING-IRF3 and non-canonical STING-NFκB signaling [117]. This effect was shown to be associated with increased tumor infiltration of CD8+ T cells in a mouse model of Lewis lung carcinoma, which was linked with increased levels of CXCL10 and CCL5 mRNAs. There was also a STING-dependent increase in PD-L1 expression, which significantly improved antitumor immune responses when the alkylating agent was combined with an anti-PD1 treatment.

2.3.3. Nucleoside Analogs

Nucleoside analogs are cytotoxic antimetabolites used as chemotherapeutics and antivirals [171,172]. The cytotoxic activity of these compounds come from their ability to disrupt cellular nucleic acid synthesis via several different mechanisms [171]. In terms of DNA damage, the incorporation of certain nucleoside analogs during replication or repair ultimately leads to stalled replication forks and chain termination [173]. Many nucleoside analogs have significant lymphoid cytotoxicity, resulting in prolonged lymphocyte depletion [174]. While this activity is being exploited for the treatment of some autoimmune disorders, it is a considerable limitation in the context of chemotherapy.
Tian et al. showed that non-cytotoxic doses of the nucleoside analog 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) induced micronuclei-like DNA structures that triggered a cGAS- and STING-dependent type I IFN response in cancer cells [118]. This cancer cell intrinsic response promoted a strong antitumor response in mouse models of colon cancer and melanoma. The authors further showed that antitumor activity was mainly a product of IFN sensing by bone-marrow-derived cells. In addition, it was promoted by a favorable antitumor microenvironment with increased intratumoral T cell levels and reduced numbers of tumor-associated myeloid cells. Wan et al. demonstrated that a micellar nanoparticle system containing the nucleoside analog gemcitabine, conjugated to a PVD polymer, activated cGAS-STING signaling in DCs that increased both antitumor NK and T cell responses in various mouse models of pancreatic cancer [119]. They further showed that activation of STING signaling in tumor cells promoted an induction of the chemokines CCL2 and CCL7 that were associated with immune resistance and was able to be reversed via the incorporation of a CCR2 (CCL2 and CCL7 receptor) antagonist into the formulation.
We recently reported that the pyrimidine nucleoside analog cytarabine (Ara-C) activates the cGAS-STING pathway [120]. We first showed that entrapment of non-cytotoxic doses of Ara-C within a multi-targeted, mannosylated, cationic, liposomal delivery system (DS) greatly improved its biological stability, and that the Ara-C/DS combination had beneficial immunomodulatory properties [175]. This delivery system was designed to specifically target both cancer and immune cells. This prompted us to investigate the immunomodulatory mechanism of Ara-C/DS. We subsequently demonstrated that the DS improves the ability of Ara-C to induce DNA DSB in several human ovarian and colorectal cancer cell lines in vitro, and that this DNA damage leads to the activation of the cGAS-STING signaling axis in an Ara-C dose-dependent fashion [120]. Interestingly, a similar activity was also observed in immune cells including peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and THP-1-derived macrophages. We further demonstrated that Ara-C/DS-mediated DNA damage translated into increased surface expression of various immune ligands on cancer cells, including MHC-1, as well as the NK cell-attracting MHC class 1 chain-related protein A and B (MICA) and UL16-binding proteins 1-62, 5 and 6 (ULBP1-62,5,6) [120], which are important ligands of the NKG2D receptor [176]. These immunomodulatory effects were linked with increased priming of cytotoxic lymphocytes ex vivo using PBMC from colorectal cancer patients, and increased NK cell activity in an in vitro co-culture model. Importantly, the doses of Ara-C used in these studies were shown to be non-toxic to the immune cells [175], and cytostatically reduced cancer cell growth in vitro without directly causing cell death [120].

3. Future Perspectives

There is significant immunotherapeutic potential in STING-associated signaling and its ability to promote antitumor immune responses. Overall, this a cumulative effect of the resulting type I IFN and chemokine responses promoting DC maturation [177], the recruitment and activation of both CTL [30,38] and NK cells [178] with requisite increases in cancer cell immune ligand expression (MHC-1, NKG2D) [67,68], and M2 to M1 macrophage repolarization within the TME [59,62,63]. Despite considerable efforts, there remains no clinically approved STING agonist for use in cancer immunotherapy applications, which is a consequence of considerable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic limitations [70,71]. Ultimately, the most critical hurdle for any successful STING agonist immunotherapeutic in the cancer setting is achieving the safe, efficient, and specific delivery in order to induce the necessary localized and acute activation [73,74].
Several recent reports have emerged which suggest that there are potential barriers inherent to the STING pathway that may help to both explain the lack of a successful agonist and guide the development of future strategies. Hong et al. suggested that cGAS-STING-associated inflammatory signaling may actually promote cancer cell survival [179]. They showed that STING-dependent non-canonical NFκB activation in response to chromosomal instability resulted in the activation of the protumor STAT3 transcription factor. STAT3 activation was a product of IL-6 and its receptor (IL-6R), with the use of an IL-6R inhibitor shown to counteract this effect. It remains to be determined whether this effect occurs with agonists that directly bind and activate STING. Li et al. investigated the underlying mechanisms limiting the clinical efficacy of STING agonist therapies, identifying that they promote the proliferation of a particular subset of protumor IL-35+ regulatory B cells in the TME that impaired NK-driven antitumor responses in several preclinical mouse cancer models [180]. The authors linked this effect with an IRF3-dependent and type-I-IFN-independent increase in the expression of the Epstein–Barr-virus-induced gene 3 (Ebi3) that encodes for a subunit of the immunosuppressive IL-35. Combining STING agonism with anti-IL-35 therapy increased NK cell proliferation, reduced tumor volume, and increased animal survival. Zhang et al. linked the canonical activation of NF-κB with prolonged and increased levels of STING signaling, an effect that was a product of inhibited microtubule-mediated Golgi-to-lysosome trafficking [181]. The authors suggested that the cross-talk between the two immunomodulatory pathways may have a cooperative effect in both antibacterial/antiviral and antitumor immune responses. However, the fact that STING pathway activation is itself associated with canonical NF-κB signaling in certain settings warrants consideration, as a possible scenario exists where the use of a STING agonist may promote prolonged activation and detrimental inflammatory effects.
Traditional cancer treatments such as radiation and chemotherapy have well known immunostimulatory effects [84] that may seem counterintuitive at first, given their intended purpose is the eradication of diseased cells. The discovery of the cGAS-STING signaling axis as a critical sensor of cytosolic DNA and initiator of innate immune responses [16] is helping to explain this enigma. When the mechanisms by which these conventional treatments exert their cytotoxic activity are examined, one commonality that emerges is their ability to induce DNA damage. This review has summarized the known reports in which the DNA-damaging activity of traditional cancer therapies has been linked with activation of the cGAS-STING axis. These therapeutic agents can be broadly grouped into three categories, including those that directly damage DNA, inhibitors of proteins involved in the DDR, and those that induce apoptosis-associated DNA damage. It is conceivable that many more of these traditional therapies that act through DNA damage will continue to be linked with the activation of the cGAS-STING pathway.
The current lack of approved STING agonist therapies is fueling investigations aimed at developing novel strategies capable of a controlled activation of the pathway. To this end, there is the notion of immunotherapeutic potential in the application of DNA-damaging agents for the indirect activation of STING via stimulating the endogenous production of its prototypical cGAMP ligand. While most of the examples we summarize in this review use cytotoxic doses of the DNA-damaging agent, and note concomitant immunostimulation from STING activation as a secondary by-product, there are a few reports where activation of the pathway is specifically targeted as part of a “chemoimmunotherapy” strategy [99,100]. We believe that there are inherent advantages to the indirect activation of STING through DNA damage. First and foremost, this strategy involves the use of therapeutic agents that already have been clinically approved for their cytotoxic chemotherapy properties, and repurposing them for their immunostimulatory properties at lower than conventional doses. Secondly, stimulating endogenous cGAMP production in the cytosol circumvents the low membrane permeability and intracellular accumulation known to limit the efficacy of direct STING agonists. In addition, there are several cellular mechanisms that function to limit the accumulation of cytosolic DNA, and would act as “built-in” modulation in order to prevent chronic proinflammatory signaling. The aforementioned mechanisms involve the activity of DNA repair proteins, including replication protein A (RPA) and RAD51 that work to prevent the accumulation of cytosolic DNA by binding and retaining DNA fragments within the nuclear compartment [182], as well as the transcription–export (TREX) complex, a 3′-5′ exonuclease that degrades cytosolic DNA in mammalian cells [183]. Finally, targeting STING activation via DNA damage may be an avenue to overcome the known loss of function mutations in STING that will intrinsically limit the efficacy of a direct agonism strategy [184]. Studies have shown that these mutations are highly prevalent in certain populations [185,186,187], where the lack of fully functional STING significantly diminishes signaling downstream of the protein. Cytosolic DNA has the potential to activate associated downstream signaling independent of cGAS and the STING protein. This activation involves several members of the DDR, including DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK) and the meiotic recombination 11 homolog A (MRE11) nuclease subunit (Figure 3). DNA-PK is a trimeric complex consisting of a catalytic subunit and the Ku70/80 heterodimer, which recognizes the ends of DSB [188]. In addition to being a critical component of the DSB repair system, DNA-PK is also a key DNA sensor that modulates several innate immune pathways [189]. When activated, DNA-PK promotes a STING-dependent innate response via IFN-γ-inducible factor 16 (IFI16) and BRCA1 [190], but can also directly phosphorylate IRF3 independent of STING [191]. MRE11 recognizes and processes DSB as part of HR repair [192], and is known to activate STING-dependent type I IFN production in various cell types [193] as part of the MRN complex along with Nijmegen breakage syndrome protein 1 (NBS1) and the RAD50 ATPase [194]. Together with MRE11, RAD50 also interacts with the caspase-recruitment domain 9 (CARD9) proinflammatory signaling adaptor to directly activate NF-κB, independent of STING [195].
One important concern of any DNA-damage-based immunotherapeutic strategy is the potential for immunotoxicity. While cytotoxicity in cancer cells is acceptable, and even beneficial for the release of antigenic material, this activity must be avoided, or kept to an absolute minimum in hematopoietic cells, in order to avoid the adverse immunological effects that plague these agents when used at conventional doses. Continued advancements in the development and use of targeted nanoparticle delivery systems will undoubtedly aid in this endeavor. Indeed, the two related reports of Cao et al. and Zhao et al. utilize nanoparticle delivery systems to target cytotoxic doses of the respective chemotherapeutics to cancer cells, with subsequent paracrine activation of STING in tumor resident immune cells [99,100]. Our own work with the Ara-C/DS follows a similar strategy, albeit with a few important distinctions. We have shown that the multi-targeted nature of the DS leads to DNA damage and cGAS-STING axis activation in both cancer cells and immune cells, with Ara-C doses that are non-cytotoxic to the latter [120,175]. Ultimately, the potential implications and/or benefits of this dual activity requires further investigation.

4. Conclusions

The role of DNA damage in the activation of immune responses continues to be delineated, from which the cGAS-STING pathway has been identified as serving a critical role. The highly touted potential of this signaling axis for cancer immunotherapy remains to be exploited. As complexities inherent to the pathway continue to be discovered, they will undoubtedly help to both rationalize the lack of an approved STING agonist therapy, and guide measures to circumvent these obstacles. The link between the DNA-damaging activities of traditional cancer therapies and cGAS-STING activation that we have reviewed herein is driving investigations into their application in the cancer immunotherapy setting. While there are several potential advantages inherent to such an indirect approach, one of the major concerns and potentially limiting factors is the associated activation of inflammatory pathways that can hinder immunotherapeutic efficacy, and even promote cancer growth [196,197,198,199]. The applicability of using DNA-damaging agents for immunotherapeutic purposes will certainly need to be demonstrated. We believe that this may be progressed through the use of low doses of DNA-damaging agents, coupled with advancements in targeted nanoparticle delivery systems. Together, they aim to minimize inflammatory responses while maintaining the beneficial immunostimulatory effects. Ultimately, what is clear is that any successful STING agonism strategy will need to balance the duality of the contrasting antitumor with the protumor/inflammatory properties inherent to the targeted pathway.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers15164127/s1, Table S1: Chemical structures of conventional cancer therapeutics linked to cGAS-STING activation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.D.L. and H.-T.L.; data curation, J.D.L., A.L.M., M.R.G., R.R. and H.-T.L.; writing—original draft preparation, J.D.L.; writing—review and editing, J.D.L., A.L.M., M.R.G., R.R., G.M.R., B.C.V. and H.-T.L.; supervision, H.-T.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This review was supported by a GlycoNet Collaborative Team grant (CR-25), awarded to René Roy and Hoang-Thanh Le. This review was also supported by the Canadian MITACS program (grant No. IT32555) and by a Discovery grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC, grant. No. RGPIN-2018-05570), awarded to René Roy. Further support was provided by the Northern Cancer Foundation (2023–2024), awarded to Hoang-Thanh Le.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tohme, S.; Simmons, R.L.; Tsung, A. Surgery for cancer: A trigger for metastases. Cancer Res. 2017, 77, 1548–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Zugazagoitia, J.; Guedes, C.; Ponce, S.; Ferrer, I.; Molina-Pinelo, S.; Paz-Ares, L. Current Challenges in Cancer Treatment. Clin. Ther. 2016, 38, 1551–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Wang, X.; Zhang, H.; Chen, X. Drug resistance and combating drug resistance in cancer. Cancer Drug Resist. 2019, 2, 141–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Waldman, A.D.; Fritz, J.M.; Lenardo, M.J. A guide to cancer immunotherapy: From T cell basic science to clinical practice. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2020, 20, 651–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Akkın, S.; Varan, G.; Bilensoy, E. A Review on Cancer Immunotherapy and Applications of Nanotechnology to Chemoimmunotherapy of Different Cancers. Molecules 2021, 26, 3382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sambi, M.; Bagheri, L.; Szewczuk, M.R. Current Challenges in Cancer Immunotherapy: Multimodal Approaches to Improve Efficacy and Patient Response Rates. J. Oncol. 2019, 2019, 4508794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Morad, G.; Helmink, B.A.; Sharma, P.; Wargo, J.A. Hallmarks of response, resistance, and toxicity to immune checkpoint blockade. Cell 2021, 184, 5309–5337, Erratum in Cell 2022, 185, 576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. de Miguel, M.; Calvo, E. Clinical Challenges of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. Cancer Cell 2020, 38, 326–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bejarano, L.; Jordāo, M.J.; Joyce, J.A. Therapeutic Targeting of the Tumor Microenvironment. Cancer Discov. 2021, 11, 933–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Weissleder, R.; Pittet, M.J. The expanding landscape of inflammatory cells affecting cancer therapy. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2020, 4, 489–498, Erratum in Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2020, 4, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cornel, A.M.; Mimpen, I.L.; Nierkens, S. MHC Class I Downregulation in Cancer: Underlying Mechanisms and Potential Targets for Cancer Immunotherapy. Cancers 2020, 12, 1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Taylor, B.C.; Balko, J.M. Mechanisms of MHC-I Downregulation and Role in Immunotherapy Response. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 844866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Duan, Q.; Zhang, H.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, L. Turning Cold into Hot: Firing up the Tumor Microenvironment. Trends Cancer 2020, 6, 605–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Zhang, J.; Huang, D.; Saw, P.E.; Song, E. Turning cold tumors hot: From molecular mechanisms to clinical applications. Trends Immunol. 2022, 43, 523–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Garland, K.M.; Sheehy, T.L.; Wilson, J.T. Chemical and Biomolecular Strategies for STING Pathway Activation in Cancer Immunotherapy. Chem. Rev. 2022, 122, 5977–6039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Mosallanejad, K.; Kagan, J.C. Control of innate immunity by the cGAS-STING pathway. Immunol. Cell Biol. 2022, 100, 409–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Sun, L.; Wu, J.; Du, F.; Chen, X.; Chen, Z.J. Cyclic GMP-AMP Synthase Is a Cytosolic DNA Sensor That Activates the Type I Interferon Pathway. Science 2013, 339, 786–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cai, X.; Chiu, Y.-H.; Chen, Z.J. The cGAS-cGAMP-STING Pathway of Cytosolic DNA Sensing and Signaling. Mol. Cell 2014, 54, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhou, W.; Whiteley, A.T.; de Oliveira Mann, C.C.; Morehouse, B.R.; Nowak, R.P.; Fischer, E.S.; Gray, N.S.; Mekalanos, J.J.; Kranzusch, P.J. Structure of the Human cGAS–DNA Complex Reveals Enhanced Control of Immune Surveillance. Cell 2018, 174, 300–311.e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Karayel, E.; Bürckstümmer, T.; Bilban, M.; Dürnberger, G.; Weitzer, S.; Martinez, J.; Superti-Furga, G. The TLR-independent DNA recognition pathway in murine macrophages: Ligand features and molecular signature. Eur. J. Immunol. 2009, 39, 1929–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dobbs, N.; Burnaevskiy, N.; Chen, D.; Gonugunta, V.K.; Alto, N.M.; Yan, N. STING Activation by Translocation from the ER Is Associated with Infection and Autoinflammatory Disease. Cell Host Microbe 2015, 18, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ni, G.; Konno, H.; Barber, G.N. Ubiquitination of STING at lysine 224 controls IRF3 activation. Sci. Immunol. 2017, 2, eaah7119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Mukai, K.; Konno, H.; Akiba, T.; Uemura, T.; Waguri, S.; Kobayashi, T.; Barber, G.N.; Arai, H.; Taguchi, T. Activation of STING requires palmitoylation at the Golgi. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 11932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ogawa, E.; Mukai, K.; Saito, K.; Arai, H.; Taguchi, T. The binding of TBK1 to STING requires exocytic membrane traffic from the ER. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2018, 503, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Liu, S.; Cai, X.; Wu, J.; Cong, Q.; Chen, X.; Li, T.; Du, F.; Ren, J.; Wu, Y.-T.; Grishin, N.V.; et al. Phosphorylation of innate immune adaptor proteins MAVS, STING, and TRIF induces IRF3 activation. Science 2015, 347, aaa2630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yum, S.; Li, M.; Fang, Y.; Chen, Z.J. TBK1 recruitment to STING activates both IRF3 and NF-κB that mediate immune defense against tumors and viral infections. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2100225118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tanaka, Y.; Chen, Z.J. STING Specifies IRF3 Phosphorylation by TBK1 in the Cytosolic DNA Signaling Pathway. Sci. Signal. 2012, 5, ra20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. 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]
  29. Hooy, R.M.; Sohn, J. The allosteric activation of cGAS underpins its dynamic signaling landscape. Elife 2018, 7, e39984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wu, J.; Chen, Z.J. Innate Immune Sensing and Signaling of Cytosolic Nucleic Acids. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2014, 32, 461–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. 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] [PubMed]
  32. Honda, K.; Takaoka, A.; Taniguchi, T. Type I Inteferon Gene Induction by the Interferon Regulatory Factor Family of Transcription Factors. Immunity 2006, 25, 349–360, Erratum in Immunity 2006, 25, 849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ishikawa, H.; Barber, G.N. STING is an endoplasmic reticulum adaptor that facilitates innate immune signalling. Nature 2008, 455, 674–678, Erratum in Nature 2008, 456, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Abe, T.; Barber, G.N. Cytosolic-DNA-Mediated, STING-Dependent Proinflammatory Gene Induction Necessitates Canonical NF-ΚB Activation through TBK1. J. Virol. 2014, 88, 5328–5341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bakhoum, S.F.; Ngo, B.; Laughney, A.M.; Cavallo, J.-A.; Murphy, C.J.; Ly, P.; Shah, P.; Sriram, R.K.; Watkins, T.B.K.; Taunk, N.K.; et al. Chromosomal instability drives metastasis through a cytosolic DNA response. Nature 2018, 553, 467–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. McWhirter, S.M.; Barbalat, R.; Monroe, K.M.; Fontana, M.F.; Hyodo, M.; Joncker, N.T.; Ishii, K.J.; Akira, S.; Colonna, M.; Chen, Z.J.; et al. A host type I interferon response is induced by cytosolic sensing of the bacterial second messenger cyclic-di-GMP. J. Exp. Med. 2009, 206, 1899–1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chen, H.; Sun, H.; You, F.; Sun, W.; Zhou, X.; Chen, L.; Yang, J.; Wang, Y.; Tang, H.; Guan, Y.; et al. Activation of STAT6 by STING Is Critical for Antiviral Innate Immunity. Cell 2011, 147, 436–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Borden, E.C. Interferons α and β in cancer: Therapeutic opportunities from new insights. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2019, 18, 219–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Qin, X.Q.; Tao, N.; Dergay, A.; Moy, P.; Fawell, S.; Davis, A.; Wilson, J.M.; Barsoum, J. Interferon-beta gene therapy inhibits tumor formation and causes regression of established tumors in immune-deficient mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998, 95, 14411–14416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kim, H.S.; Lee, M.-S. STAT1 as a key modulator of cell death. Cell. Signal. 2007, 19, 454–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ryuke, Y.; Mizuno, M.; Natsume, A.; Suzuki, O.; Nobayashi, M.; Kageshita, T.; Matsumoto, K.; Saida, T.; Yoshida, J. Growth inhibition of subcutaneous mouse melanoma and induction of natural killer cells by liposome-mediated interferon-β gene therapy. Melanoma Res. 2003, 13, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Spaapen, R.M.; Leung, M.Y.K.; Fuertes, M.B.; Kline, J.P.; Zhang, L.; Zheng, Y.; Fu, Y.-X.; Luo, X.; Cohen, K.S.; Gajewski, T.F. Therapeutic Activity of High-Dose Intratumoral IFN-β Requires Direct Effect on the Tumor Vasculature. J. Immunol. 2014, 193, 4254–4260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Indraccolo, S. Interferon-α as angiogenesis inhibitor: Learning from tumor models. Autoimmunity 2010, 43, 244–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wu, J.; Dobbs, N.; Yang, K.; Yan, N. Interferon-Independent Activities of Mammalian STING Mediate Antiviral Response and Tumor Immune Evasion. Immunity 2020, 53, 115–126.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhu, Y.; An, X.; Zhang, X.; Qiao, Y.; Zheng, T.; Li, X. STING: A master regulator in the cancer-immunity cycle. Mol. Cancer 2019, 18, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Luft, T.; Pang, K.C.; Thomas, E.; Hertzog, P.; Hart, D.N.; Trapani, J.; Cebon, J. Type I IFNs enhance the terminal differentiation of dendritic cells. J. Immunol. 1998, 161, 1947–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Paquette, R.L.; Hsu, N.C.; Kiertscher, S.M.; Park, A.N.; Tran, L.; Roth, M.D.; Glaspy, J.A. Interferon-α and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor differentiate peripheral blood monocytes into potent antigen-presenting cells. J. Leukoc. Biol. 1998, 64, 358–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Radvanyi, L.G.; Banerjee, A.; Weir, M.; Messner, H. Low Levels of Interferon-alpha Induce CD86 (B7.2) Expression and Accelerates Dendritic Cell Maturation from Human Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells. Scand. J. Immunol. 1999, 50, 499–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Coffelt, S.B.; de Visser, K.E. Immune-mediated mechanisms influencing the efficacy of anticancer therapies. Trends Immunol. 2015, 36, 198–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Škrnjug, I.; Guzmán, C.A.; Ruecker, C. Cyclic GMP-AMP Displays Mucosal Adjuvant Activity in Mice. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e110150, Erratum in PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0123605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, J.; Li, P.; Wu, M.X. Natural STING Agonist as an “Ideal” Adjuvant for Cutaneous Vaccination. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2016, 136, 2183–2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. 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, 2005–2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Gutjahr, A.; Papagno, L.; Nicoli, F.; Kanuma, T.; Kuse, N.; Cabral-Piccin, M.P.; Rochereau, N.; Gostick, E.; Lioux, T.; Perouzel, E.; et al. The STING ligand cGAMP potentiates the efficacy of vaccine-induced CD8+ T cells. JCI Insight 2019, 4, e125107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Woo, S.-R.; Corrales, L.; Gajewski, T.F. The STING pathway and the T cell-inflamed tumor microenvironment. Trends Immunol. 2015, 36, 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Li, W.; Lu, L.; Lu, J.; Wang, X.; Yang, C.; Jin, J.; Wu, L.; Hong, X.; Li, F.; Cao, D.; et al. cGAS-STING–mediated DNA sensing maintains CD8 + T cell stemness and promotes antitumor T cell therapy. Sci. Transl. Med. 2020, 12, eaay9013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Shakya, A.K.; Lee, C.H.; Uddin, M.J.; Gill, H.S. Assessment of Th1/Th2 Bias of STING Agonists Coated on Microneedles for Possible Use in Skin Allergen Immunotherapy. Mol. Pharm. 2018, 15, 5437–5443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Heusinkveld, M.; de Vos van Steenwijk, P.J.; Goedemans, R.; Ramwadhdoebe, T.H.; Gorter, A.; Welters, M.J.P.; van Hall, T.; Van Der Burg, S.H. M2 Macrophages Induced by Prostaglandin E2 and IL-6 from Cervical Carcinoma Are Switched to Activated M1 Macrophages by CD4+ Th1 Cells. J. Immunol. 2011, 187, 1157–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Eisel, D.; Das, K.; Dickes, E.; König, R.; Osen, W.; Eichmüller, S.B. Cognate Interaction with CD4+ T Cells Instructs Tumor-Associated Macrophages to Acquire M1-Like Phenotype. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Wang, N.; Liang, H.; Zen, K. Molecular Mechanisms That Influence the Macrophage M1–M2 Polarization Balance. Front. Immunol. 2014, 5, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Pan, X.-Q. The mechanism of the anticancer function of M1 macrophages and their use in the clinic. Chin. J. Cancer 2012, 31, 557–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chen, Y.; Song, Y.; Du, W.; Gong, L.; Chang, H.; Zou, Z. Tumor-associated macrophages: An accomplice in solid tumor progression. J. Biomed. Sci. 2019, 26, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Cheng, N.; Watkins-Schulz, R.; Junkins, R.D.; David, C.N.; Johnson, B.M.; Montgomery, S.A.; Peine, K.J.; Darr, D.B.; Yuan, H.; McKinnon, K.P.; et al. A nanoparticle-incorporated STING activator enhances antitumor immunity in PD-L1–insensitive models of triple-negative breast cancer. JCI Insight 2018, 3, e120638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Downey, C.M.; Aghaei, M.; Schwendener, R.A.; Jirik, F.R. DMXAA Causes Tumor Site-Specific Vascular Disruption in Murine Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, and like the Endogenous Non-Canonical Cyclic Dinucleotide STING Agonist, 2′3′-cGAMP, Induces M2 Macrophage Repolarization. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e99988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. 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.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Harlin, H.; Meng, Y.; Peterson, A.C.; Zha, Y.; Tretiakova, M.; Slingluff, C.; McKee, M.; Gajewski, T.F. Chemokine Expression in Melanoma Metastases Associated with CD8+ T-Cell Recruitment. Cancer Res. 2009, 69, 3077–3085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pak-Wittel, M.A.; Yang, L.; Sojka, D.K.; Rivenbark, J.G.; Yokoyama, W.M. Interferon-γ mediates chemokine-dependent recruitment of natural killer cells during viral infection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, E50–E59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Grabosch, S.; Bulatovic, M.; Zeng, F.; Ma, T.; Zhang, L.; Ross, M.; Brozick, J.; Fang, Y.; Tseng, G.; Kim, E.; et al. Cisplatin-induced immune modulation in ovarian cancer mouse models with distinct inflammation profiles. Oncogene 2019, 38, 2380–2393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lam, A.R.; Bert, N.L.; Ho, S.S.W.; Shen, Y.J.; Tang, M.L.F.; Xiong, G.M.; Croxford, J.L.; Koo, C.X.; Ishii, K.J.; Akira, S.; et al. RAE1 Ligands for the NKG2D Receptor Are Regulated by STING-Dependent DNA Sensor Pathways in Lymphoma. Cancer Res. 2014, 74, 2193–2203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Aval, L.M.; Pease, J.E.; Sharma, R.; Pinato, D.J. Challenges and Opportunities in the Clinical Development of STING Agonists for Cancer Immunotherapy. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 3323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Su, T.; Zhang, Y.; Valerie, K.; Wang, X.-Y.; Lin, S.; Zhu, G. STING activation in cancer immunotherapy. Theranostics 2019, 9, 7759–7771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wu, J.; Zhao, L.; Hu, H.; Li, W.; Li, Y. Agonists and inhibitors of the STING pathway: Potential agents for immunotherapy. Med. Res. Rev. 2020, 40, 1117–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Mabbott, N.A.; Baillie, J.K.; Brown, H.; Freeman, T.C.; A Hume, D. An expression atlas of human primary cells: Inference of gene function from coexpression networks. BMC Genom. 2013, 14, 632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Marabelle, A.; Andtbacka, R.; Harrington, K.; Melero, I.; Leidner, R.; de Baere, T.; Robert, C.; Ascierto, P.A.; Baurain, J.-F.; Imperiale, M.; et al. Starting the fight in the tumor: Expert recommendations for the development of human intratumoral immunotherapy (HIT-IT). Ann. Oncol. 2018, 29, 2163–2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Shimabukuro-Vornhagen, A.; Gödel, P.; Subklewe, M.; Stemmler, H.J.; Schlößer, H.A.; Schlaak, M.; Kochanek, M.; Böll, B.; von Bergwelt-Baildon, M.S. Cytokine release syndrome. J. Immunother. Cancer 2018, 6, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Decout, A.; Katz, J.D.; Venkatraman, S.; Ablasser, A. The cGAS–STING pathway as a therapeutic target in inflammatory diseases. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2021, 21, 548–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Nowarski, R.; Gagliani, N.; Huber, S.; Flavell, R.A. Innate Immune Cells in Inflammation and Cancer. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2013, 1, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ahn, J.; Xia, T.; Konno, H.; Konno, K.; Ruiz, P.; Barber, G.N. Inflammation-driven carcinogenesis is mediated through STING. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 5166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kwon, J.; Bakhoum, S.F. The Cytosolic DNA-Sensing cGAS–STING Pathway in Cancer. Cancer Discov. 2020, 10, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zheng, J.; Mo, J.; Zhu, T.; Zhuo, W.; Yi, Y.; Hu, S.; Yin, J.; Zhang, W.; Zhou, H.; Liu, Z. Comprehensive elaboration of the cGAS-STING signaling axis in cancer development and immunotherapy. Mol. Cancer 2020, 19, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Garcia-Diaz, A.; Shin, D.S.; Moreno, B.H.; Saco, J.; Escuin-Ordinas, H.; Rodriguez, G.A.; Zaretsky, J.M.; Sun, L.; Hugo, W.; Wang, X.; et al. Interferon Receptor Signaling Pathways Regulating PD-L1 and PD-L2 Expression. Cell Rep. 2017, 19, 1189–1201, Erratum in Cell Rep. 2019, 29, 3766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Morimoto, Y.; Kishida, T.; Kotani, S.-I.; Takayama, K.; Mazda, O. Interferon-β signal may up-regulate PD-L1 expression through IRF9-dependent and independent pathways in lung cancer cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2018, 507, 330–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Walsh, S.R.; Bastin, D.; Chen, L.; Nguyen, A.; Storbeck, C.J.; Lefebvre, C.; Stojdl, D.; Bramson, J.L.; Bell, J.C.; Wan, Y. Type I IFN blockade uncouples immunotherapy-induced antitumor immunity and autoimmune toxicity. J. Clin. Investig. 2019, 129, 518–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hou, Y.; Liang, H.; Rao, E.; Zheng, W.; Huang, X.; Deng, L.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, X.; Xu, M.; Mauceri, H.; et al. Non-canonical NF-κB Antagonizes STING Sensor-Mediated DNA Sensing in Radiotherapy. Immunity 2018, 49, 490–503.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Bracci, L.; Schiavoni, G.; Sistigu, A.; Belardelli, F. Immune-based mechanisms of cytotoxic chemotherapy: Implications for the design of novel and rationale-based combined treatments against cancer. Cell Death Differ. 2014, 21, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Tanaka, H.; Matsushima, H.; Mizumoto, N.; Takashima, A. Classification of Chemotherapeutic Agents Based on Their Differential In vitro Effects on Dendritic Cells. Cancer Res. 2009, 69, 6978–6986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bryniarski, K.; Szczepanik, M.; Ptak, M.; Zemelka, M.; Ptak, W. Influence of cyclophosphamide and its metabolic products on the activity of peritoneal macrophages in mice. Pharmacol. Rep. 2009, 61, 550–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Buhtoiarov, I.N.; Sondel, P.M.; Wigginton, J.M.; Buhtoiarova, T.N.; Yanke, E.M.; Mahvi, D.A.; Rakhmilevich, A.L. Anti-tumour synergy of cytotoxic chemotherapy and anti-CD40 plus CpG-ODN immunotherapy through repolarization of tumour-associated macrophages. Immunology 2011, 132, 226–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Park, S.; Kang, S.; Chen, X.; Kim, E.J.; Kim, J.; Kim, N.; Kim, J.; Jin, M.M. Tumor suppression via paclitaxel-loaded drug carriers that target inflammation marker upregulated in tumor vasculature and macrophages. Biomaterials 2013, 34, 598–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Proietti, E.; Moschella, F.; Capone, I.; Belardelli, F. Exploitation of the propulsive force of chemotherapy for improving the response to cancer immunotherapy. Mol. Oncol. 2012, 6, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Jackson, S.P.; Bartek, J. The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease. Nature 2009, 461, 1071–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ye, Z.; Shi, Y.; Lees-Miller, S.P.; Tainer, J.A. Function and Molecular Mechanism of the DNA Damage Response in Immunity and Cancer Immunotherapy. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 797880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Bednarski, J.J.; Sleckman, B.P. At the intersection of DNA damage and immune responses. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2019, 19, 231–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Reisländer, T.; Groelly, F.J.; Tarsounas, M. DNA Damage and Cancer Immunotherapy: A STING in the Tale. Mol. Cell 2020, 80, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Zierhut, C.; Yamaguchi, N.; Paredes, M.; Luo, J.-D.; Carroll, T.; Funabiki, H. The Cytoplasmic DNA Sensor cGAS Promotes Mitotic Cell Death. Cell 2019, 178, 302–315.e23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Lohard, S.; Bourgeois, N.; Maillet, L.; Gautier, F.; Fétiveau, A.; Lasla, H.; Nguyen, F.; Vuillier, C.; Dumont, A.; Moreau-Aubry, A.; et al. STING-dependent paracriny shapes apoptotic priming of breast tumors in response to anti-mitotic treatment. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Hu, Y.; Manasrah, B.K.; McGregor, S.M.; Lera, R.F.; Norman, R.X.; Tucker, J.B.; Scribano, C.M.; Yan, R.E.; Humayun, M.; Wisinski, K.B.; et al. Paclitaxel Induces Micronucleation and Activates Pro-Inflammatory cGAS–STING Signaling in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2021, 20, 2553–2567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Fermaintt, C.S.; Takahashi-Ruiz, L.; Liang, H.; Mooberry, S.L.; Risinger, A.L. Eribulin Activates the cGAS-STING Pathway via the Cytoplasmic Accumulation of Mitochondrial DNA. Mol. Pharmacol. 2021, 100, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Pépin, G.; Nejad, C.; Ferrand, J.; Thomas, B.J.; Stunden, H.J.; Sanij, E.; Foo, C.-H.; Stewart, C.R.; Cain, J.E.; Bardin, P.G.; et al. Topoisomerase 1 Inhibition Promotes Cyclic GMP-AMP Synthase-Dependent Antiviral Responses. mBio 2017, 8, e01611-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Cao, L.; Tian, H.; Fang, M.; Xu, Z.; Tang, D.; Chen, J.; Yin, J.; Xiao, H.; Shang, K.; Han, H.; et al. Activating cGAS-STING pathway with ROS-responsive nanoparticles delivering a hybrid prodrug for enhanced chemo-immunotherapy. Biomaterials 2022, 290, 121856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zhao, J.; Ma, S.; Xu, Y.; Si, X.; Yao, H.; Huang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, H.; Tang, Z.; Song, W.; et al. In situ activation of STING pathway with polymeric SN38 for cancer chemoimmunotherapy. Biomaterials 2021, 268, 120542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kitai, Y.; Kawasaki, T.; Sueyoshi, T.; Kobiyama, K.; Ishii, K.J.; Zou, J.; Akira, S.; Matsuda, T.; Kawai, T. DNA-Containing Exosomes Derived from Cancer Cells Treated with Topotecan Activate a STING-Dependent Pathway and Reinforce Antitumor Immunity. J. Immunol. 2017, 198, 1649–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Luthra, P.; Aguirre, S.; Yen, B.C.; Pietzsch, C.A.; Sanchez-Aparicio, M.T.; Tigabu, B.; Morlock, L.K.; García-Sastre, A.; Leung, D.W.; Williams, N.S.; et al. Topoisomerase II Inhibitors Induce DNA Damage-Dependent Interferon Responses Circumventing Ebola Virus Immune Evasion. mBio 2017, 8, e00368-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Wang, Z.; Chen, J.; Hu, J.; Zhang, H.; Xu, F.; He, W.; Wang, X.; Li, M.; Lu, W.; Zeng, G.; et al. cGAS/STING axis mediates a topoisomerase II inhibitor–induced tumor immunogenicity. J. Clin. Investig. 2019, 129, 4850–4862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Dunphy, G.; Flannery, S.M.; Almine, J.F.; Connolly, D.J.; Paulus, C.; Jønsson, K.L.; Jakobsen, M.R.; Nevels, M.M.; Bowie, A.G.; Unterholzner, L. Non-canonical Activation of the DNA Sensing Adaptor STING by ATM and IFI16 Mediates NF-κB Signaling after Nuclear DNA Damage. Mol. Cell 2018, 71, 745–760.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Chabanon, R.M.; Muirhead, G.; Krastev, D.B.; Adam, J.; Morel, D.; Garrido, M.; Lamb, A.; Hénon, C.; Dorvault, N.; Rouanne, M.; et al. PARP inhibition enhances tumor cell–intrinsic immunity in ERCC1-deficient non–small cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Investig. 2019, 129, 1211–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ding, L.; Kim, H.-J.; Wang, Q.; Kearns, M.; Jiang, T.; Ohlson, C.E.; Li, B.B.; Xie, S.; Liu, J.F.; Stover, E.H.; et al. PARP Inhibition Elicits STING-Dependent Antitumor Immunity in Brca1-Deficient Ovarian Cancer. Cell Rep. 2018, 25, 2972–2980.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Pantelidou, C.; Sonzogni, O.; De Oliveria Taveira, M.; Mehta, A.K.; Kothari, A.; Wang, D.; Visal, T.; Li, M.K.; Pinto, J.; Castrillon, J.A.; et al. PARP Inhibitor Efficacy Depends on CD8+ T-cell Recruitment via Intratumoral STING Pathway Activation in BRCA-Deficient Models of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Cancer Discov. 2019, 9, 722–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Reisländer, T.; Lombardi, E.P.; Groelly, F.J.; Miar, A.; Porru, M.; Di Vito, S.; Wright, B.; Lockstone, H.; Biroccio, A.; Harris, A.; et al. BRCA2 abrogation triggers innate immune responses potentiated by treatment with PARP inhibitors. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 3143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Shen, J.; Zhao, W.; Ju, Z.; Wang, L.; Peng, Y.; Labrie, M.; Yap, T.A.; Mills, G.B.; Peng, G. PARPi Triggers the STING-Dependent Immune Response and Enhances the Therapeutic Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Blockade Independent of BRCAness. Cancer Res. 2019, 79, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Sheng, H.; Huang, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Shen, M.; Zhou, P.; Guo, Z.; Wang, J.; Wang, H.; Dai, W.; et al. ATR inhibitor AZD6738 enhances the antitumor activity of radiotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors by potentiating the tumor immune microenvironment in hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Immunother. Cancer 2020, 8, e000340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zhang, Q.; Green, M.D.; Lang, X.; Lazarus, J.; Parsels, J.D.; Wei, S.; Parsels, L.A.; Shi, J.; Ramnath, N.; Wahl, D.R.; et al. Inhibition of ATM Increases Interferon Signaling and Sensitizes Pancreatic Cancer to Immune Checkpoint Blockade Therapy. Cancer Res. 2019, 79, 3940–3951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Hu, M.; Zhou, M.; Bao, X.; Pan, D.; Jiao, M.; Liu, X.; Li, F.; Li, C.-Y. ATM inhibition enhances cancer immunotherapy by promoting mtDNA leakage and cGAS/STING activation. J. Clin. Investig. 2021, 131, e139333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Cornelison, R.; Biswas, K.; Llaneza, D.C.; Harris, A.R.; Sosale, N.G.; Lazzara, M.J.; Landen, C.N. CX-5461 Treatment Leads to Cytosolic DNA-Mediated STING Activation in Ovarian Cancer. Cancers 2021, 13, 5056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Frey, B.; Rückert, M.; Deloch, L.; Rühle, P.F.; Derer, A.; Fietkau, R.; Gaipl, U.S. Immunomodulation by ionizing radiation-impact for design of radio-immunotherapies and for treatment of inflammatory diseases. Immunol. Rev. 2017, 280, 231–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Maekawa, H.; Inoue, T.; Ouchi, H.; Jao, T.-M.; Inoue, R.; Nishi, H.; Fujii, R.; Ishidate, F.; Tanaka, T.; Tanaka, Y.; et al. Mitochondrial Damage Causes Inflammation via cGAS-STING Signaling in Acute Kidney Injury. Cell Rep. 2019, 29, 1261–1273.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Parkes, E.E.; Walker, S.M.; Taggart, L.E.; McCabe, N.; Knight, L.A.; Wilkinson, R.; McCloskey, K.D.; Buckley, N.E.; Savage, K.I.; Salto-Tellez, M.; et al. Activation of STING-Dependent Innate Immune Signaling By S-Phase-Specific DNA Damage in Breast Cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2016, 109, djw199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Zhou, L.; Xu, Q.; Huang, L.; Jin, J.; Zuo, X.; Zhang, Q.; Ye, L.; Zhu, S.; Zhan, P.; Ren, J.; et al. Low-dose carboplatin reprograms tumor immune microenvironment through STING signaling pathway and synergizes with PD-1 inhibitors in lung cancer. Cancer Lett. 2021, 500, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Tian, J.; Zhang, D.; Kurbatov, V.; Wang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Fang, D.; Wu, L.; Bosenberg, M.; Muzumdar, M.D.; Khan, S.; et al. 5-Fluorouracil efficacy requires anti-tumor immunity triggered by cancer-cell-intrinsic STING. EMBO J. 2021, 40, e106065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Wan, Z.; Huang, H.; West, R.E., III; Zhang, M.; Zhang, B.; Cai, X.; Zhang, Z.; Luo, Z.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, Y.; et al. Overcoming pancreatic cancer immune resistance by codelivery of CCR2 antagonist using a STING-activating gemcitabine-based nanocarrier. Mater. Today 2023, 62, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Lewicky, J.D.; Martel, A.L.; Fraleigh, N.L.; Picard, E.; Mousavifar, L.; Nakamura, A.; Diaz-Mitoma, F.; Roy, R.; Le, H.-T. Exploiting the DNA Damaging Activity of Liposomal Low Dose Cytarabine for Cancer Immunotherapy. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 2710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. van Vuuren, R.J.; Visagie, M.H.; Theron, A.E.; Joubert, A.M. Antimitotic drugs in the treatment of cancer. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2015, 76, 1101–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Orth, J.D.; Loewer, A.; Lahav, G.; Mitchison, T.J.; Uetake, Y.; Sluder, G.; Solomon, M.E.M.J.; Potapova, T.A.; Seidel, C.W.; Box, A.C.; et al. Prolonged mitotic arrest triggers partial activation of apoptosis, resulting in DNA damage and p53 induction. Mol. Biol. Cell 2012, 23, 567–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Kitazumi, I.; Tsukahara, M. Regulation of DNA fragmentation: The role of caspases and phosphorylation. FEBS J. 2011, 278, 427–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Poruchynsky, M.S.; Komlodi-Pasztor, E.; Trostel, S.; Wilkerson, J.; Regairaz, M.; Pommier, Y.; Zhang, X.; Maity, T.K.; Robey, R.; Burotto, M.; et al. Microtubule-targeting agents augment the toxicity of DNA-damaging agents by disrupting intracellular trafficking of DNA repair proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 1571–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Wang, J.C. Cellular roles of DNA topoisomerases: A molecular perspective. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2002, 3, 430–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Malik, M.; Nitiss, J.L. DNA Repair Functions That Control Sensitivity to Topoisomerase-Targeting Drugs. Eukaryot. Cell 2004, 3, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. McKie, S.J.; Neuman, K.C.; Maxwell, A. DNA topoisomerases: Advances in understanding of cellular roles and multi-protein complexes via structure-function analysis. Bioessays 2021, 43, e2000286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Nitiss, J.L.; Wang, J.C. Mechanisms of cell killing by drugs that trap covalent complexes between DNA topoisomerases and DNA. Mol. Pharmacol. 1996, 50, 1095–1102. [Google Scholar]
  129. Pommier, Y.; Leo, E.; Zhang, H.; Marchand, C. DNA Topoisomerases and Their Poisoning by Anticancer and Antibacterial Drugs. Chem. Biol. 2010, 17, 421–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Ferraro, C.; Quemeneur, L.; Fournel, S.; Prigent, A.-F.; Revillard, J.-P.; Bonnefoy-Berard, N. The topoisomerase inhibitors camptothecin and etoposide induce a CD95-independent apoptosis of activated peripheral lymphocytes. Cell Death Differ. 2000, 7, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Morales, J.; Li, L.; Fattah, F.J.; Dong, Y.; Bey, E.A.; Patel, M.; Gao, J.; Boothman, D.A. Review of Poly (ADP-ribose) Polymerase (PARP) Mechanisms of Action and Rationale for Targeting in Cancer and Other Diseases. Crit. Rev. Eukaryot. Gene Expr. 2014, 24, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Langelier, M.-F.; Eisemann, T.; Riccio, A.A.; Pascal, J.M. PARP family enzymes: Regulation and catalysis of the poly(ADP-ribose) posttranslational modification. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2018, 53, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Eustermann, S.; Wu, W.-F.; Langelier, M.-F.; Yang, J.-C.; Easton, L.E.; Riccio, A.A.; Pascal, J.M.; Neuhaus, D. Structural Basis of Detection and Signaling of DNA Single-Strand Breaks by Human PARP-1. Mol. Cell 2015, 60, 742–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Beck, C.; Robert, I.; Reina-San-Martin, B.; Schreiber, V.; Dantzer, F. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerases in double-strand break repair: Focus on PARP1, PARP2 and PARP3. Exp. Cell Res. 2014, 329, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Rose, M.; Burgess, J.T.; O’byrne, K.; Richard, D.J.; Bolderson, E. PARP Inhibitors: Clinical Relevance, Mechanisms of Action and Tumor Resistance. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2020, 8, 564601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Chen, C.-C.; Feng, W.; Lim, P.X.; Kass, E.M.; Jasin, M. Homology-Directed Repair and the Role of BRCA1, BRCA2, and Related Proteins in Genome Integrity and Cancer. Annu. Rev. Cancer Biol. 2018, 2, 313–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Cimprich, K.A.; Cortez, D. ATR: An essential regulator of genome integrity. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2008, 9, 616–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Kastan, M.B.; Lim, D.-S. The many substrates and functions of ATM. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2000, 1, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Vassin, V.M.; Anantha, R.W.; Sokolova, E.; Kanner, S.; Borowiec, J.A. Human RPA phosphorylation by ATR stimulates DNA synthesis and prevents ssDNA accumulation during DNA-replication stress. J. Cell Sci. 2009, 122 Pt 22, 4070–4080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Cortez, D.; Guntuku, S.; Qin, J.; Elledge, S.J. ATR and ATRIP: Partners in Checkpoint Signaling. Science 2001, 294, 1713–1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Wagner, S.A.; Oehler, H.; Voigt, A.; Dalic, D.; Freiwald, A.; Serve, H.; Beli, P. ATR inhibition rewires cellular signaling networks induced by replication stress. Proteomics 2016, 16, 402–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Uziel, T.; Lerenthal, Y.; Moyal, L.; Andegeko, Y.; Mittelman, L.; Shiloh, Y. Requirement of the MRN complex for ATM activation by DNA damage. EMBO J. 2003, 22, 5612–5621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Mei, L.; Zhang, J.; He, K.; Zhang, J. Ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related inhibitors and cancer therapy: Where we stand. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2019, 12, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Lavin, M.F.; Yeo, A.J. Clinical potential of ATM inhibitors. Mutat. Res. Fundam. Mol. Mech. Mutagen. 2020, 821, 111695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Dillon, M.T.; Bergerhoff, K.F.; Pedersen, M.; Whittock, H.; Crespo-Rodriguez, E.; Patin, E.C.; Pearson, A.; Smith, H.G.; Paget, J.T.E.; Patel, R.R.; et al. ATR Inhibition Potentiates the Radiation-induced Inflammatory Tumor Microenvironment. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019, 25, 3392–3403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Vendetti, F.P.; Karukonda, P.; Clump, D.A.; Teo, T.; Lalonde, R.; Nugent, K.; Ballew, M.; Kiesel, B.F.; Beumer, J.H.; Sarkar, S.N.; et al. ATR kinase inhibitor AZD6738 potentiates CD8+ T cell–dependent antitumor activity following radiation. J. Clin. Investig. 2018, 128, 3926–3940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Vendetti, F.P.; Lau, A.; Schamus, S.; Conrads, T.P.; O’connor, M.J.; Bakkenist, C.J. The orally active and bioavailable ATR kinase inhibitor AZD6738 potentiates the anti-tumor effects of cisplatin to resolve ATM-deficient non-small cell lung cancer in vivo. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 44289–44305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Hall, A.B.; Newsome, D.; Wang, Y.; Boucher, D.M.; Eustace, B.; Gu, Y.; Hare, B.; Johnson, M.A.; Li, H.; Milton, S.; et al. Potentiation of tumor responses to DNA damaging therapy by the selective ATR inhibitor VX-970. Oncotarget 2014, 5, 5674–5685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Agapov, A.; Olina, A.; Kulbachinskiy, A. RNA polymerase pausing, stalling and bypass during transcription of damaged DNA: From molecular basis to functional consequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022, 50, 3018–3041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Lindsey-Boltz, L.A.; Sancar, A. RNA polymerase: The most specific damage recognition protein in cellular responses to DNA damage? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 13213–13214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Laham-Karam, N.; Pinto, G.P.; Poso, A.; Kokkonen, P. Transcription and Translation Inhibitors in Cancer Treatment. Front. Chem. 2020, 8, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Kim, N. The Interplay between G-quadruplex and Transcription. Curr. Med. Chem. 2019, 26, 2898–2917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Xu, H.; Di Antonio, M.; McKinney, S.; Mathew, V.; Ho, B.; O’neil, N.J.; Dos Santos, N.; Silvester, J.; Wei, V.; Garcia, J.; et al. CX-5461 is a DNA G-quadruplex stabilizer with selective lethality in BRCA1/2 deficient tumours. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 14432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Lomax, M.E.; Folkes, L.K.; O’Neill, P. Biological consequences of radiation-induced DNA damage: Relevance to radiotherapy. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 25, 578–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Datta, K.; Jaruga, P.; Dizdaroglu, M.; Neumann, R.D.; Winters, T.A. Molecular Analysis of Base Damage Clustering Associated with a Site-Specific Radiation-Induced DNA Double-Strand Break. Radiat. Res. 2006, 166, 767–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Rothkamm, K.; Löbrich, M. Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in human cells exposed to very low x-ray doses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 5057–5062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Heylmann, D.; Rödel, F.; Kindler, T.; Kaina, B. Radiation sensitivity of human and murine peripheral blood lymphocytes, stem and progenitor cells. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2014, 1846, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Storozynsky, Q.; Hitt, M.M. The Impact of Radiation-Induced DNA Damage on cGAS-STING-Mediated Immune Responses to Cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 8877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Karati, D.; Mahadik, K.R.; Trivedi, P.; Kumar, D. Alkylating Agents, the Road Less Traversed, Changing Anticancer Therapy. Anti-Cancer Agents Med. Chem. 2022, 22, 1478–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Kondo, N.; Takahashi, A.; Ono, K.; Ohnishi, T. DNA Damage Induced by Alkylating Agents and Repair Pathways. J. Nucleic Acids 2010, 2010, 543531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Weickert, P.; Stingele, J. DNA–Protein Crosslinks and Their Resolution. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2022, 91, 157–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Peng, Y.; Pei, H. DNA alkylation lesion repair: Outcomes and implications in cancer chemotherapy. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B. 2021, 22, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Rongvaux, A.; Jackson, R.; Harman, C.C.; Li, T.; West, A.P.; de Zoete, M.R.; Wu, Y.; Yordy, B.; Lakhani, S.A.; Kuan, C.-Y.; et al. Apoptotic Caspases Prevent the Induction of Type I Interferons by Mitochondrial DNA. Cell 2014, 159, 1563–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. West, A.P.; Khoury-Hanold, W.; Staron, M.; Tal, M.C.; Pineda, C.M.; Lang, S.M.; Bestwick, M.; Duguay, B.A.; Raimundo, N.; MacDuff, D.A.; et al. Mitochondrial DNA stress primes the antiviral innate immune response. Nature 2015, 520, 553–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Pabla, N.; Dong, Z. Cisplatin nephrotoxicity: Mechanisms and renoprotective strategies. Kidney Int. 2008, 73, 994–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Miller, R.P.; Tadagavadi, R.K.; Ramesh, G.; Reeves, W.B. Mechanisms of Cisplatin Nephrotoxicity. Toxins 2010, 2, 2490–2518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Motani, K.; Ito, S.; Nagata, S. DNA-Mediated Cyclic GMP–AMP Synthase–Dependent and –Independent Regulation of Innate Immune Responses. J. Immunol. 2015, 194, 4914–4923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Kunz, M.; Toksoy, A.; Goebeler, M.; Engelhardt, E.; Gillitzer, R.; Bröcker, E.-B. Strong expression of the lymphoattractant C-X-C chemokine Mig is associated with heavy infiltration of T cells in human malignant melanoma. J. Pathol. 1999, 189, 552–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Ohtani, H.; Jin, Z.; Takegawa, S.; Nakayama, T.; Yoshie, O. Abundant expression of CXCL9 (MIG) by stromal cells that include dendritic cells and accumulation of CXCR3+ T cells in lymphocyte-rich gastric carcinoma. J. Pathol. 2009, 217, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Muthuswamy, R.; Berk, E.; Junecko, B.F.; Zeh, H.J.; Zureikat, A.H.; Normolle, D.; Luong, T.M.; Reinhart, T.A.; Bartlett, D.L.; Kalinski, P. NF-κB Hyperactivation in Tumor Tissues Allows Tumor-Selective Reprogramming of the Chemokine Microenvironment to Enhance the Recruitment of Cytolytic T Effector Cells. Cancer Res. 2012, 72, 3735–3743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Galmarini, C.M.; Mackey, J.R.; Dumontet, C. Nucleoside analogues and nucleobases in cancer treatment. Lancet Oncol. 2002, 3, 415–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. LiverTox: Clinical and Research Information on Drug-Induced Liver Injury; Nucleoside Analogues; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2012.
  173. Sampath, D.; Rao, V.A.; Plunkett, W. Mechanisms of apoptosis induction by nucleoside analogs. Oncogene 2003, 22, 9063–9074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Robak, T.; Lech-Maranda, E.; Korycka, A.; Robak, E. Purine nucleoside analogs as immunosuppressive and antineoplastic agents: Mechanism of action and clinical activity. Curr. Med. Chem. 2006, 13, 3165–3189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Martel, A.L.; Fraleigh, N.L.; Picard, E.; Lewicky, J.D.; Pawelec, G.; Lee, H.; Ma, G.W.; Mousavifar, L.; Roy, R.; Le, H.-T. Novel immunomodulatory properties of low dose cytarabine entrapped in a mannosylated cationic liposome. Int. J. Pharm. 2021, 606, 120849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Duan, S.; Guo, W.; Xu, Z.; He, Y.; Liang, C.; Mo, Y.; Wang, Y.; Xiong, F.; Guo, C.; Li, Y.; et al. Natural killer group 2D receptor and its ligands in cancer immune escape. Mol. Cancer 2019, 18, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Vatner, R.E.; Janssen, E.M. STING, DCs and the link between innate and adaptive tumor immunity. Mol. Immunol. 2019, 110, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Marcus, A.; Mao, A.J.; Lensink-Vasan, M.; Wang, L.; Vance, R.E.; Raulet, D.H. Tumor-Derived cGAMP Triggers a STING-Mediated Interferon Response in Non-tumor Cells to Activate the NK Cell Response. Immunity 2018, 49, 754–763.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Hong, C.; Schubert, M.; Tijhuis, A.E.; Requesens, M.; Roorda, M.; Brink, A.v.D.; Ruiz, L.A.; Bakker, P.L.; van der Sluis, T.; Pieters, W.; et al. cGAS–STING drives the IL-6-dependent survival of chromosomally instable cancers. Nature 2022, 607, 366–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Li, S.; Mirlekar, B.; Johnson, B.M.; Brickey, W.J.; Wrobel, J.A.; Yang, N.; Song, D.; Entwistle, S.; Tan, X.; Deng, M.; et al. STING-induced regulatory B cells compromise NK function in cancer immunity. Nature 2022, 610, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Zhang, L.; Wei, X.; Wang, Z.; Liu, P.; Hou, Y.; Xu, Y.; Su, H.; Koci, M.D.; Yin, H.; Zhang, C. NF-κB activation enhances STING signaling by altering microtubule-mediated STING trafficking. Cell Rep. 2023, 42, 112185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Wolf, C.; Rapp, A.; Berndt, N.; Staroske, W.; Schuster, M.; Dobrick-Mattheuer, M.; Kretschmer, S.; König, N.; Kurth, T.; Wieczorek, D.; et al. RPA and Rad51 constitute a cell intrinsic mechanism to protect the cytosol from self DNA. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 11752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Mazur, D.J.; Perrino, F.W. Identification and Expression of the TREX1 and TREX2 cDNA Sequences Encoding Mammalian 3′→5′ Exonucleases. J. Biol. Chem. 1999, 274, 19655–19660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Patel, S.; Jin, L. TMEM173 variants and potential importance to human biology and disease. Genes Immun. 2019, 20, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Patel, S.; Blaauboer, S.M.; Tucker, H.R.; Mansouri, S.; Ruiz-Moreno, J.S.; Hamann, L.; Schumann, R.R.; Opitz, B.; Jin, L. The Common R71H-G230A-R293Q Human TMEM173 Is a Null Allele. J. Immunol. 2017, 198, 776–787, Erratum in J. Immunol. 2017, 198, 4547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Ruiz-Moreno, J.S.; Hamann, L.; Shah, J.A.; Verbon, A.; Mockenhaupt, F.; Puzianowska-Kuznicka, M.; Naujoks, J.; Sander, L.E.; Witzenrath, M.; Cambier, J.C.; et al. The common HAQ STING variant impairs cGAS-dependent antibacterial responses and is associated with susceptibility to Legionnaires’ disease in humans. PLoS Pathog. 2018, 14, e1006829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Kennedy, R.B.; Haralambieva, I.H.; Ovsyannikova, I.G.; Voigt, E.A.; Larrabee, B.R.; Schaid, D.J.; Zimmermann, M.T.; Oberg, A.L.; Poland, G.A. Polymorphisms in STING Affect Human Innate Immune Responses to Poxviruses. Front. Immunol. 2020, 11, 567348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Chen, X.; Xu, X.; Chen, Y.; Cheung, J.C.; Wang, H.; Jiang, J.; de Val, N.; Fox, T.; Gellert, M.; Yang, W. Structure of an activated DNA-PK and its implications for NHEJ. Mol. Cell 2021, 81, 801–810.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Schwartz, C.; Rohr, O.; Wallet, C. Targeting the DNA-PK complex: Its rationale use in cancer and HIV-1 infection. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2019, 160, 80–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Justice, J.L.; Kennedy, M.A.; Hutton, J.E.; Liu, D.; Song, B.; Phelan, B.; Cristea, I.M. Systematic profiling of protein complex dynamics reveals DNA-PK phosphorylation of IFI16 en route to herpesvirus immunity. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eabg6680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Karpova, A.Y.; Trost, M.; Murray, J.M.; Cantley, L.C.; Howley, P.M. Interferon regulatory factor-3 is an in vivo target of DNA-PK. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 2818–2823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Käshammer, L.; Saathoff, J.-H.; Lammens, K.; Gut, F.; Bartho, J.; Alt, A.; Kessler, B.; Hopfner, K.-P. Mechanism of DNA End Sensing and Processing by the Mre11-Rad50 Complex. Mol. Cell 2019, 76, 382–394.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Kondo, T.; Kobayashi, J.; Saitoh, T.; Maruyama, K.; Ishii, K.J.; Barber, G.N.; Komatsu, K.; Akira, S.; Kawai, T. DNA damage sensor MRE11 recognizes cytosolic double-stranded DNA and induces type i interferon by regulating STING trafficking. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 2969–2974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. McCarthy-Leo, C.; Darwiche, F.; Tainsky, M.A. DNA Repair Mechanisms, Protein Interactions and Therapeutic Targeting of the MRN Complex. Cancers 2022, 14, 5278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Roth, S.; Rottach, A.; Lotz-Havla, A.S.; Laux, V.; Muschaweckh, A.; Gersting, S.W.; Muntau, A.C.; Hopfner, K.-P.; Jin, L.; Vanness, K.; et al. Rad50-CARD9 interactions link cytosolic DNA sensing to IL-1β production. Nat. Immunol. 2014, 15, 538–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Georgakilas, A.G.; Pavlopoulou, A.; Louka, M.; Nikitaki, Z.; Vorgias, C.E.; Bagos, P.G.; Michalopoulos, I. Emerging molecular networks common in ionizing radiation, immune and inflammatory responses by employing bioinformatics approaches. Cancer Lett. 2015, 368, 164–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Nastasi, C.; Mannarino, L.; D’Incalci, M. DNA Damage Response and Immune Defense. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 7504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Shen, R.; Liu, D.; Wang, X.; Guo, Z.; Sun, H.; Song, Y.; Wang, D. DNA Damage and Activation of cGAS/STING Pathway Induce Tumor Microenvironment Remodeling. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2022, 9, e828657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Barros, E.M.; McIntosh, S.A.; Savage, K.I. The DNA damage induced immune response: Implications for cancer therapy. DNA Repair. 2022, 120, e103409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The cGAS-STING axis signaling and a comparison of direct versus indirect STING activation. Direct STING activation (A) is being targeted with STING agonists, whereas indirect activation (B) occurs via cGAS sensing of cytosolic DNA fragments, and its subsequent endogenous synthesis of the canonical CDN STING agonist cGAMP. The DNA damage induced by traditional cancer therapies, such as radiation and certain chemotherapeutics, has been increasingly linked with indirect STING activation. Whether directly or indirectly activated, the translocation of STING from the endoplasmic reticulum to the Golgi body initiates a series of phosphorylation-based signaling events culminating in the activation of the IRF3 and NF-κB transcription factors, and subsequent production of type I IFNs and various other proinflammatory cytokines.
Figure 1. The cGAS-STING axis signaling and a comparison of direct versus indirect STING activation. Direct STING activation (A) is being targeted with STING agonists, whereas indirect activation (B) occurs via cGAS sensing of cytosolic DNA fragments, and its subsequent endogenous synthesis of the canonical CDN STING agonist cGAMP. The DNA damage induced by traditional cancer therapies, such as radiation and certain chemotherapeutics, has been increasingly linked with indirect STING activation. Whether directly or indirectly activated, the translocation of STING from the endoplasmic reticulum to the Golgi body initiates a series of phosphorylation-based signaling events culminating in the activation of the IRF3 and NF-κB transcription factors, and subsequent production of type I IFNs and various other proinflammatory cytokines.
Cancers 15 04127 g001
Figure 2. The role of the cGAS-STING axis in promoting anticancer immunity. The activation of cGAS-STING and the resulting type I IFNs, cytokines, and chemokines induce a variety of cell-specific responses that all contribute to antitumor immune activity. Activation of immature DCs leads to increased antigen uptake/processing, maturation, and lymph node migration. Here, the DCs present antigens to naïve T cells, and potentiate their differentiation into Th and CTL, which migrate and infiltrate the tumor site where they carry out antitumor responses. A similar process occurs in NK cells, in which their priming leads to an increased expression of immune receptors, including NKG2D. These cellular immune responses are promoted by requisite increases in tumor cell immune ligand expression, including MHC-1 for CTL recognition, as well as MHC class 1 chain-related protein A and B (MICA/B) and UL16-binding proteins 1-6 (ULBP1-6) for recognition by NKG2D.
Figure 2. The role of the cGAS-STING axis in promoting anticancer immunity. The activation of cGAS-STING and the resulting type I IFNs, cytokines, and chemokines induce a variety of cell-specific responses that all contribute to antitumor immune activity. Activation of immature DCs leads to increased antigen uptake/processing, maturation, and lymph node migration. Here, the DCs present antigens to naïve T cells, and potentiate their differentiation into Th and CTL, which migrate and infiltrate the tumor site where they carry out antitumor responses. A similar process occurs in NK cells, in which their priming leads to an increased expression of immune receptors, including NKG2D. These cellular immune responses are promoted by requisite increases in tumor cell immune ligand expression, including MHC-1 for CTL recognition, as well as MHC class 1 chain-related protein A and B (MICA/B) and UL16-binding proteins 1-6 (ULBP1-6) for recognition by NKG2D.
Cancers 15 04127 g002
Figure 3. Alternative innate immune signaling pathways activated by cytosolic DNA. In addition to cGAS, the DDR factors DNA-PK and MRE11 facilitate cytosolic DNA sensing, resulting in the activation of both STING itself, and its associated downstream signaling. For simplicity, the activation of endoplasmic-reticulum-bound STING and its translocation to the Golgi have been omitted.
Figure 3. Alternative innate immune signaling pathways activated by cytosolic DNA. In addition to cGAS, the DDR factors DNA-PK and MRE11 facilitate cytosolic DNA sensing, resulting in the activation of both STING itself, and its associated downstream signaling. For simplicity, the activation of endoplasmic-reticulum-bound STING and its translocation to the Golgi have been omitted.
Cancers 15 04127 g003
Table 1. Summary of conventional cancer therapies linked with cGAS-STING signaling axis activation.
Table 1. Summary of conventional cancer therapies linked with cGAS-STING signaling axis activation.
CategoryClassMechanism of DNA DamageAgentDoseReference
Antimitotic AgentsMicrotubule Targeting AgentsInduction of apoptosis-associated nucleases; Disruption of intracellular DNA repair protein trafficking.Taxol
(Paclitaxel)
 
 
Eribulin
Cytotoxic
 
 
 
Cytotoxic
[94]
[95]
[96]
 
[97]
DDR Enzyme
Inhibitors
Topoisomerase
Inhibitors
Disruption of enzyme catalyzed changes in DNA double helix structure during
replication, transcription and repair.
CamptothecinNon-Cytotoxic[98]
Camptothecin + CisplatinCytotoxic[99]
SN38Cytotoxic[100]
TopotecanCytotoxic[101]
Doxorubicin, DaunorubicinNon-Cytotoxic[102]
EtoposideNon-Cytotoxic
Cytotoxic
[103]
[104]
PARP InhibitorsDisruption of enzyme catalyzed synthesis of Poly(ADP-ribose) signal for other
DNA-repairing enzymes.
OlaparibCytotoxic[105]
[106]
[107]
N/A[108]
RucaparibCytotoxic[105]
TalazoparibNon-Cytotoxic (Cytostatic)[109]
ATR and ATM
Inhibitors
Indirect DNA damage from inhibition of DDR; Disruption of coordination between cell cycle and DDR.Ceralasertib (AZD6738)
 
KU60019
 
AZD1390 and KU55933
N/A
 
N/A
 
N/A
[110]
 
[111]
 
[112]
RNA Polymerase
Inhibitors
Nucleolar disruption from blocking of
transcription initiation and promoter release.
CX-5461N/A[113]
Direct DNA-Damaging AgentsRadiotherapyBase pair damage, single- and double-strand breaks from high energy of radiation.Ionizing RadiationN/AReviewed in [114]
Alkylating AgentsCovalent attachment of alkyl groups to guanine base purine rings which interferes with enzymes involved in replication and
transcription.
CisplatinCytotoxic[115]
[116]
Cisplatin + CamptothecinCytotoxic[99]
CarboplatinNon-Cytotoxic[117]
Nucleoside AnalogsDisruption of cellular nucleic acid synthesis; Incorporation into DNA sequence leading to stalled replication forks.5-FluorouracilNon-Cytotoxic[118]
GemcitabineN/A[119]
CytarabineNon-Cytotoxic
(Cytostatic)
[120]
Dose designation based on whether or not direct evidence was presented of cytotoxicity (in vitro cell death and/or in vivo tumor reduction/cell death) with the particular therapy at the specific doses(s) linked with cGAS-STING activation. Cases where this designation could not be made have been assigned N/A for not available. PARP: poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase; ATR: ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related; ATM: ataxia telangiectasia mutated.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lewicky, J.D.; Martel, A.L.; Gupta, M.R.; Roy, R.; Rodriguez, G.M.; Vanderhyden, B.C.; Le, H.-T. Conventional DNA-Damaging Cancer Therapies and Emerging cGAS-STING Activation: A Review and Perspectives Regarding Immunotherapeutic Potential. Cancers 2023, 15, 4127. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15164127

AMA Style

Lewicky JD, Martel AL, Gupta MR, Roy R, Rodriguez GM, Vanderhyden BC, Le H-T. Conventional DNA-Damaging Cancer Therapies and Emerging cGAS-STING Activation: A Review and Perspectives Regarding Immunotherapeutic Potential. Cancers. 2023; 15(16):4127. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15164127

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lewicky, Jordan D., Alexandrine L. Martel, Mukul Raj Gupta, René Roy, Galaxia M. Rodriguez, Barbara C. Vanderhyden, and Hoang-Thanh Le. 2023. "Conventional DNA-Damaging Cancer Therapies and Emerging cGAS-STING Activation: A Review and Perspectives Regarding Immunotherapeutic Potential" Cancers 15, no. 16: 4127. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15164127

APA Style

Lewicky, J. D., Martel, A. L., Gupta, M. R., Roy, R., Rodriguez, G. M., Vanderhyden, B. C., & Le, H. -T. (2023). Conventional DNA-Damaging Cancer Therapies and Emerging cGAS-STING Activation: A Review and Perspectives Regarding Immunotherapeutic Potential. Cancers, 15(16), 4127. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15164127

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