STING agonist delivery by tumour-penetrating PEG-lipid nanodiscs primes robust anticancer immunity
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Activation of the innate immune STimulator of INterferon Genes (STING) pathway potentiates antitumour immunity, but systemic delivery of STING agonists to tumours is challenging. We conjugated STING-activating cyclic dinucleotides (CDNs) to PEGylated lipids (CDN-PEG-lipids; PEG, polyethylene glycol) via a cleavable linker and incorporated them into lipid nanodiscs (LNDs), which are discoid nanoparticles formed by self-assembly. Compared to state-of-the-art liposomes, intravenously administered LNDs carrying CDN-PEG-lipid (LND-CDNs) exhibited more efficient penetration of tumours, exposing the majority of tumour cells to STING agonist. A single dose of LND-CDNs induced rejection of established tumours, coincident with immune memory against tumour rechallenge. Although CDNs were not directly tumoricidal, LND-CDN uptake by cancer cells correlated with robust T-cell activation by promoting CDN and tumour antigen co-localization in dendritic cells. LNDs thus appear promising as a vehicle for robust delivery of compounds throughout solid tumours, which can be exploited for enhanced immunotherapy.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: interferon and immune responses · Immunotherapy and Immune Responses · Virus-based gene therapy research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (52)
Show source-provided references
1. Sharma, P. & Allison, J. P. The future of immune checkpoint therapy. Science 348, 56–61 (2015).10.1126/science.aaa8172 ↗
2. Larson, R. C. & Maus, M. V. Recent advances and discoveries in the mechanisms and functions of CAR T cells. Nat. Rev. Cancer https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-020-00323-z (2021).10.1038/s41568-020-00323-z ↗
3. Chen, D. S. & Mellman, I. Elements of cancer immunity and the cancer–immune set point. Nature 541, 321–330 (2017).10.1038/nature21349 ↗
4. Seelige, R., Searles, S. & Bui, J. D. Innate sensing of cancer’s non-immunologic hallmarks. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 50, 1–8 (2018).10.1016/j.coi.2017.09.005 ↗
5. Flood, B. A., Higgs, E. F., Li, S., Luke, J. J. & Gajewski, T. F. STING pathway agonism as a cancer therapeutic. Immunol. Rev. 290, 24–38 (2019).10.1111/imr.12765 ↗
6. Hammerich, L., Binder, A. & Brody, J. D. In situ vaccination: cancer immunotherapy both personalized and off‐the‐shelf. Mol. Oncol. 9, 1966–1981 (2015).10.1016/j.molonc.2015.10.016 ↗
7. Woo, S.-R. et al. STING-dependent cytosolic DNA sensing mediates innate immune recognition of immunogenic tumors. Immunity 41, 830–842 (2014).10.1016/j.immuni.2014.10.017 ↗
8. Corrales, L. et al. Direct activation of STING in the tumor microenvironment leads to potent and systemic tumor regression and immunity. Cell Rep. 11, 1018–1030 (2015).10.1016/j.celrep.2015.04.031 ↗
9. Ramanjulu, J. M. et al. Design of amidobenzimidazole STING receptor agonists with systemic activity. Nature 126, 1–16 (2018).
10. Pan, B.-S. et al. An orally available non-nucleotide STING agonist with antitumor activity. Science 369, eaba6098 (2020).10.1126/science.aba6098 ↗
11. Chin, E. N. et al. Antitumor activity of a systemic STING-activating non-nucleotide cGAMP mimetic. Science 369, 993–999 (2020).10.1126/science.abb4255 ↗
12. Koshy, S. T., Cheung, A. S., Gu, L., Graveline, A. R. & Mooney, D. J. Liposomal delivery enhances immune activation by STING agonists for cancer immunotherapy. Adv. Biosyst. 1, 1600013 (2017).10.1002/adbi.201600013 ↗
13. Shae, D. et al. Endosomolytic polymersomes increase the activity of cyclic dinucleotide STING agonists to enhance cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 269–278 (2019).10.1038/s41565-018-0342-5 ↗
14. Wehbe, M. et al. Nanoparticle delivery improves the pharmacokinetic properties of cyclic dinucleotide STING agonists to open a therapeutic window for intravenous administration. J. Control. Release 330, 1118–1129 (2020).10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.11.017 ↗
15. Luo, M. et al. A STING-activating nanovaccine for cancer immunotherapy. Nature Nanotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2017.52 (2017).10.1038/nnano.2017.52 ↗
16. Cheng, N. et al. A nanoparticle-incorporated STING activator enhances antitumor immunity in PD-L1-insensitive models of triple-negative breast cancer. JCI Insight 3, e120638 (2018).10.1172/jci.insight.120638 ↗
17. Zhu, X., Vo, C., Taylor, M. & Smith, B. R. Non-spherical micro- and nanoparticles in nanomedicine. Mater. Horiz. 6, 1094–1121 (2019).10.1039/C8MH01527A ↗
18. Albanese, A., Tang, P. S. & Chan, W. C. W. The effect of nanoparticle size, shape, and surface chemistry on biological systems. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 14, 1–16 (2012).10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071811-150124 ↗
19. Chauhan, V. P. et al. Fluorescent nanorods and nanospheres for real-time in vivo probing of nanoparticle shape-dependent tumor penetration. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 50, 11417–11420 (2011).10.1002/anie.201104449 ↗
20. Niora, M. et al. Head-to-head comparison of the penetration efficiency of lipid-based nanoparticles into tumor spheroids. ACS Omega 5, 21162–21171 (2020).10.1021/acsomega.0c02879 ↗
21. Tang, L. et al. Investigating the optimal size of anticancer nanomedicine. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 15344–15349 (2014).10.1073/pnas.1411499111 ↗
22. Ding, J. et al. Engineered nanomedicines with enhanced tumor penetration. Nano Today 29, 100800 (2019).10.1016/j.nantod.2019.100800 ↗
23. Cabral, H. et al. Accumulation of sub-100 nm polymeric micelles in poorly permeable tumours depends on size. Nat. Nanotechnol. 6, 815–823 (2011).10.1038/nnano.2011.166 ↗
24. Johnsson, M. & Edwards, K. Liposomes, disks, and spherical micelles: Aggregate structure in mixtures of gel phase phosphatidylcholines and poly(ethylene glycol)-phospholipids. Biophys. J. 85, 3839–3847 (2003).10.1016/S0006-3495(03)74798-5 ↗
25. Zetterberg, M. M., Ahlgren, S., Hernández, V. A., Parveen, N. & Edwards, K. Optimization of lipodisk properties by modification of the extent and density of the PEG corona. J. Colloid Inter. Sci. 484, 86–96 (2016).10.1016/j.jcis.2016.08.067 ↗
26. Miller, M. L. et al. A DNA-interacting payload designed to eliminate cross-linking improves the therapeutic index of antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs). Mol. Cancer Ther. 17, molcanther.0940.2017 (2018).10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-0940 ↗
27. Zhigaltsev, I. V., Tam, Y. K., Leung, A. K. K. & Cullis, P. R. Production of limit size nanoliposomal systems with potential utility as ultra-small drug delivery agents. J. Liposome Res. 26, 1–7 (2015).10.3109/08982104.2015.1025411 ↗
28. Bargh, J. D., Isidro-Llobet, A., Parker, J. S. & Spring, D. R. Cleavable linkers in antibody–drug conjugates. Chem. Soc. Rev. 48, 4361–4374 (2019).10.1039/C8CS00676H ↗
29. Povsic, T. J. et al. Pre-existing anti-PEG antibodies are associated with severe immediate allergic reactions to pegnivacogin, a PEGylated aptamer. J. Allergy Clin. Immun. 138, 1712–1715 (2016).10.1016/j.jaci.2016.04.058 ↗
30. McSweeney, M. D. et al. A minimal physiologically based pharmacokinetic model that predicts anti-PEG IgG-mediated clearance of PEGylated drugs in human and mouse. J. Control. Release 284, 171–178 (2018).10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.06.002 ↗
31. Francica, B. J. et al. TNFalpha and radio-resistant stromal cells are essential for therapeutic efficacy of cyclic dinucleotide STING agonists in non-immunogenic tumors. Cancer Immunol. Res 6, canimm.0263.2017 (2018).10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-17-0263 ↗
32. Demaria, O. et al. STING activation of tumor endothelial cells initiates spontaneous and therapeutic antitumor immunity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 15408–15413 (2015).10.1073/pnas.1512832112 ↗
33. Roberts, E. W. et al. Critical Role for CD103(+)/CD141(+) dendritic cells bearing CCR7 for tumor antigen trafficking and priming of T cell immunity in melanoma. Cancer Cell. 30, 324–336 (2016).10.1016/j.ccell.2016.06.003 ↗
34. Sivick, K. E. et al. Magnitude of therapeutic STING activation determines CD8+ T cell-mediated anti-tumor immunity. Cell Rep. 25, 3074–3085.e5 (2018).10.1016/j.celrep.2018.11.047 ↗
35. Mahiddine, K., Hassel, C., Murat, C., Girard, M. & Guerder, S. Tissue-specific factors differentially regulate the expression of antigen-processing enzymes during dendritic cell ontogeny. Front Immunol. 11, 453 (2020).10.3389/fimmu.2020.00453 ↗
36. Jakoš, T., Pišlar, A., Jewett, A. & Kos, J. Cysteine cathepsins in tumor-associated immune cells. Front Immunol. 10, 2037 (2019).10.3389/fimmu.2019.02037 ↗
37. Mosely, S. I. S. et al. Rational selection of syngeneic preclinical tumor models for immunotherapeutic drug discovery. Cancer Immunol. Res. 5, 29–41 (2017).10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-16-0114 ↗
38. Miller, M. A. et al. Tumour-associated macrophages act as a slow-release reservoir of nano-therapeutic Pt(IV) pro-drug. Nat. Commun. 6, 1–13 (2015).
39. Korangath, P. et al. Nanoparticle interactions with immune cells dominate tumor retention and induce T cell–mediated tumor suppression in models of breast cancer. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay1601 (2020).10.1126/sciadv.aay1601 ↗
40. Ahn, J., Xia, T., Capote, A. R., Betancourt, D. & Barber, G. N. Extrinsic phagocyte-dependent STING signaling dictates the immunogenicity of dying cells. Cancer Cell 33, 862–873.e5 (2018).10.1016/j.ccell.2018.03.027 ↗
41. Edwards, K., Johnsson, M., Karlsson, G. & Silvander, M. Effect of polyethyleneglycol-phospholipids on aggregate structure in preparations of small unilamellar liposomes. Biophys. J. 73, 258–266 (1997).10.1016/S0006-3495(97)78066-4 ↗
42. Zhang, M. et al. Enhanced glioblastoma targeting ability of carfilzomib enabled by a D A7R-modified lipid nanodisk. Mol. Pharmacol. 15, 2437–2447 (2018).10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.8b00270 ↗
43. Lin, L. et al. Doxorubicin and indocyanine green loaded hybrid bicelles for fluorescence imaging guided synergetic chemo/photothermal therapy. Bioconjugate Chem. 28, 2410–2419 (2017).10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.7b00407 ↗
44. Ahlgren, S., Fondell, A., Gedda, L. & Edwards, K. EGF-targeting lipodisks for specific delivery of poorly water-soluble anticancer agents to tumour cells. RSC Adv. 7, 1–9 (2017).10.1039/C7RA04059H ↗
45. Castells, M. C. & Phillips, E. J. Maintaining safety with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 643–649 (2020).10.1056/NEJMra2035343 ↗
46. Schlapschy, M. et al. PASylation: a biological alternative to PEGylation for extending the plasma half-life of pharmaceutically active proteins. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 26, 489–501 (2013).10.1093/protein/gzt023 ↗
47. Yoshikawa, M. et al. WO2018100558 cyclic dinucleotides as STING (stimulator of interferon genes) agonists. (2018).
48. Hess, B., Kutzner, C., Spoel, Dvander & Lindahl, E. GROMACS 4: algorithms for highly efficient, load-balanced, and scalable molecular simulation. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 4, 435–447 (2008).10.1021/ct700301q ↗
49. Marrink, S. J., Risselada, H. J., Yefimov, S., Tieleman, D. P. & Vries, A. Hde The MARTINI force field: coarse grained model for biomolecular simulations. J. Phys. Chem. B 111, 7812–7824 (2007).10.1021/jp071097f ↗
50. Wassenaar, T. A., Ingólfsson, H. I., Böckmann, R. A., Tieleman, D. P. & Marrink, S. J. Computational lipidomics with insane: a versatile tool for generating custom membranes for molecular simulations. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 11, 2144–2155 (2015).10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00209 ↗
51. Qi, Y. et al. CHARMM-GUI martini maker for coarse-grained simulations with the martini force field. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 11, 4486–4494 (2015).10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00513 ↗
52. Larsen, A. H. et al. The atomic simulation environment—a Python library for working with atoms. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 29, 273002 (2017).10.1088/1361-648X/aa680e ↗