11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Biological Effects of Nanoparticles on Macrophage Polarization in the Tumor Microenvironment

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Biological interactions between tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), cancer cells and other cells within the tumor microenvironment contribute to tumorigenesis, tumor growth, metastasis and therapeutic resistance. TAMs can remodel the tumor microenvironment to reduce growth barriers such as the dense extracellular matrix and shift tumors towards an immunosuppressive microenvironment that protects cancer cells from targeted immune responses. Nanoparticles can interrupt these biological interactions within tumors by altering TAM phenotypes through a process called polarization. Macrophage polarization within tumors can shift TAMs from a growth-promoting phenotype towards a cancer cell-killing phenotype that predicts treatment efficacy. Because many types of nanoparticles have been shown to preferentially accumulate within macrophages following systemic administration, there is considerable interest in identifying nanoparticle effects on TAM polarization, evaluating nanoparticle-induced TAM polarization effects on cancer treatment using drug-loaded nanoparticles and identifying beneficial types of nanoparticles for effective cancer treatment. In this review, the macrophage polarization effects of nanoparticles will be described based on their primary chemical composition. Because of their strong macrophage-polarizing and antitumor effects compared to other types of nanoparticles, the effects of iron oxide nanoparticles on macrophages will be discussed in detail. By comparing the macrophage polarization effects of various nanoparticle treatments reported in the literature, this review aims to both elucidate nanoparticle material effects on macrophage polarization and to provide insight into engineering nanoparticles with more beneficial immunological responses for cancer treatment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 136

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Understanding the Mysterious M2 Macrophage through Activation Markers and Effector Mechanisms

          The alternatively activated or M2 macrophages are immune cells with high phenotypic heterogeneity and are governing functions at the interface of immunity, tissue homeostasis, metabolism, and endocrine signaling. Today the M2 macrophages are identified based on the expression pattern of a set of M2 markers. These markers are transmembrane glycoproteins, scavenger receptors, enzymes, growth factors, hormones, cytokines, and cytokine receptors with diverse and often yet unexplored functions. This review discusses whether these M2 markers can be reliably used to identify M2 macrophages and define their functional subdivisions. Also, it provides an update on the novel signals of the tissue environment and the neuroendocrine system which shape the M2 activation. The possible evolutionary roots of the M2 macrophage functions are also discussed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            IRF5 promotes inflammatory macrophage polarization and TH1-TH17 responses.

            Polymorphisms in the gene encoding the transcription factor IRF5 that lead to higher mRNA expression are associated with many autoimmune diseases. Here we show that IRF5 expression in macrophages was reversibly induced by inflammatory stimuli and contributed to the plasticity of macrophage polarization. High expression of IRF5 was characteristic of M1 macrophages, in which it directly activated transcription of the genes encoding interleukin 12 subunit p40 (IL-12p40), IL-12p35 and IL-23p19 and repressed the gene encoding IL-10. Consequently, those macrophages set up the environment for a potent T helper type 1 (T(H)1)-T(H)17 response. Global gene expression analysis demonstrated that exogenous IRF5 upregulated or downregulated expression of established phenotypic markers of M1 or M2 macrophages, respectively. Our data suggest a critical role for IRF5 in M1 macrophage polarization and define a previously unknown function for IRF5 as a transcriptional repressor.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Molecular characterization of the tumor microenvironment in breast cancer.

              Here we describe the comprehensive gene expression profiles of each cell type composing normal breast tissue and in situ and invasive breast carcinomas using serial analysis of gene expression. Based on these data, we determined that extensive gene expression changes occur in all cell types during cancer progression and that a significant fraction of altered genes encode secreted proteins and receptors. Despite the dramatic gene expression changes in all cell types, genetic alterations were detected only in cancer epithelial cells. The CXCL14 and CXCL12 chemokines overexpressed in tumor myoepithelial cells and myofibroblasts, respectively, bind to receptors on epithelial cells and enhance their proliferation, migration, and invasion. Thus, chemokines may play a role in breast tumorigenesis by acting as paracrine factors.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nanotheranostics
                Nanotheranostics
                ntno
                Nanotheranostics
                Ivyspring International Publisher (Sydney )
                2206-7418
                2019
                1 January 2019
                : 3
                : 1
                : 66-88
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Neurosurgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90048
                [2 ]Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90048
                [3 ]Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90048
                [4 ]Current Address: Department of Cell Biology and Biochemistry, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX 79430, USA
                Author notes
                ✉ Corresponding author: J Manuel Perez, PhD. Department of Biomedical Sciences & Department of Neurosurgery, Biomedical Imaging Research Institute & Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedar Sinai Medical Center, 127 S. San Vicente Blvd, Suite A8113, Los Angeles CA, 90048. Email: jmanuel.perez@ 123456cshs.org

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.

                Article
                ntnov03p0066
                10.7150/ntno.30052
                6328304
                © Ivyspring International Publisher

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). See http://ivyspring.com/terms for full terms and conditions.

                Categories
                Review

                Comments

                Comment on this article