Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Alerts
  • Advertising/recruitment
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • By specialty
    • Cardiology
    • Gastroenterology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Neuroscience
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • Vascular biology
    • All...
  • Videos
    • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
    • Author's Takes
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews...
    • Mechanisms Underlying the Metabolic Syndrome (Oct 2019)
    • Reparative Immunology (Jul 2019)
    • Allergy (Apr 2019)
    • Biology of familial cancer predisposition syndromes (Feb 2019)
    • Mitochondrial dysfunction in disease (Aug 2018)
    • Lipid mediators of disease (Jul 2018)
    • Cellular senescence in human disease (Apr 2018)
    • View all review series...
  • Collections
    • Recently published
    • In-Press Preview
    • Commentaries
    • Concise Communication
    • Editorials
    • Viewpoint
    • Scientific Show Stoppers
    • Top read articles
  • Clinical Medicine
  • JCI This Month
    • Current issue
    • Past issues

  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Author's Takes
  • Recently published
  • Brief Reports
  • Technical Advances
  • Commentaries
  • Editorials
  • Hindsight
  • Review series
  • Reviews
  • The Attending Physician
  • First Author Perspectives
  • Scientific Show Stoppers
  • Top read articles
  • Concise Communication
STING activation reprograms tumor vasculatures and synergizes with VEGFR2 blockade
Hannah Yang, … , Hong Jae Chon, Chan Kim
Hannah Yang, … , Hong Jae Chon, Chan Kim
Published October 1, 2019; First published July 25, 2019
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 2019;129(10):4350-4364. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI125413.
View: Text | PDF
Categories: Research Article Angiogenesis Immunology

STING activation reprograms tumor vasculatures and synergizes with VEGFR2 blockade

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

The stimulator of IFN genes (STING) signaling pathway is a critical link between innate and adaptive immunity and induces antitumor immune responses. STING is expressed in vasculatures, but its role in tumor angiogenesis has not been elucidated. Here, we investigated STING-induced tumor vascular remodeling and the potential of STING-based combination immunotherapy. Endothelial STING expression was correlated with enhanced T cell infiltration and prolonged survival in human colon and breast cancer. Intratumoral STING activation with STING agonists (cGAMP or RR-CDA) normalized tumor vasculatures in implanted and spontaneous cancers, but not in STING-deficient mice. These were mediated by upregulation of type I/II IFN genes and vascular stabilizing genes (e.g., Angpt1, Pdgfrb, and Col4a). STING in nonhematopoietic cells is as important as STING in hematopoietic cells for inducing a maximal therapeutic efficacy of exogenous STING agonists. Vascular normalizing effects of STING agonists were dependent on type I IFN signaling and CD8+ T cells. Notably, STING-based immunotherapy was maximally effective when combined with VEGFR2 blockade and/or immune-checkpoint blockade (αPD-1 or αCTLA-4), leading to complete regression of immunotherapy-resistant tumors. Our data show that intratumoral STING activation can normalize tumor vasculature and the tumor microenvironment, providing a rationale for combining STING-based immunotherapy and antiangiogenic therapy.

Authors

Hannah Yang, Won Suk Lee, So Jung Kong, Chang Gon Kim, Joo Hoon Kim, Sei Kyung Chang, Sewha Kim, Gwangil Kim, Hong Jae Chon, Chan Kim

×

Figure 8

STING agonist treatment combined with VEGFR2 blockade induces complete tumor regression and enhances vascular normalization in established tumors.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
STING agonist treatment combined with VEGFR2 blockade induces complete t...
Mice were subcutaneously implanted with LLC tumor cells and treated with STING agonist (S) and/or DC101 (V). Red arrows indicate injections of STING agonists, blue arrows indicate injections of DC101, and black arrow indicates sacrifice. (A and B) Comparison of LLC tumor growth in mice treated with cGAMP (10 μg) and/or DC101. Mean (A) and individual (B) tumor growth curves over time. The number of tumor-free mice is indicated for each group. (C and D) Representative images (C) and comparisons (D) of CD31+ blood vessels and NG2+ pericyte coverage. (E and F) Comparison of LLC tumor growth in mice treated with RR-CDA (25 μg) and/or DC101. Mean (E) and individual (F) tumor growth curves over time. The number of tumor-free mice is indicated for each group. (G) Waterfall plots showing the maximal percentage of changes of each tumor at the end of the experiment compared with baseline volume. (H) Kaplan-Meier survival curves for overall survival. *P < 0.05, log-rank test. Unless otherwise denoted, pooled data from 2 experiments with n = 6 to 8 per group. Values are shown as mean ± SD. *P < 0.05 versus PBS; #P < 0.05 versus S; §P < 0.05 versus V. ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test (A, D, and E). Scale bars: 50 μm.
Follow JCI:
Copyright © 2019 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts