Commentary - Journal of Cancer Immunology (2021) Volume 3, Issue 1
Small-molecule Interferon Inducers for Cancer Immunotherapy Targeting Non-T cell-inflamed Tumors
Eunha Kim1, Sanghee Lee2,3*
1Department of Molecular Science and Technology, Ajou University, Suwon, South Korea
2Brain Science Institute, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Seoul, South Korea
3Department of HY-KIST Bio-convergence, Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea
- *Corresponding Author:
- Sanghee Lee
Received date: December 18, 2020; Accepted date: January 27, 2021
Citation: Kim E, Lee S. Small-molecule Interferon Inducers for Cancer Immunotherapy Targeting Non-T cell-inflamed Tumors. J
Cancer Immunol. 2021; 3(1): 13-17.
Copyright: © 2021 Kim E, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Since the discovery of escaping mechanism of tumor from negative immune regulation, the paradigm of drug discovery for anti-cancer agents has been dramatically shifted to cancer immunotherapy (e.g., dendritic cell therapy, CAR-T cell therapy, or antibody therapy) by stimulating patient’s immune system to treat cancer [1-3]. Particularly, immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1, PD-L1, and CTLA-4 prevent tumor cells from evading immune surveillance and result in anti-tumor responses . These immunomodulators were considered as a ‘game-changer’ with remarkable clinical achievement . However, the response rate for immune checkpoint inhibitors was still variable and even quite low in a certain type of cancer despite their promising clinical outcome . To explain the low response rate and compromised immune system, diverse biological processes are investigated for spontaneous anti-tumor immune response, but we aim to discuss T cell-inflamed tumor microenvironment in this commentary.
Immunophenotype of solid tumors is classified with two statuses by tumor microenvironment regulatory pathway – T cell-inflamed phenotype (‘hot’ tumor) versus non-T cellinflamed phenotype (‘cold’ tumor) . In T cell-inflamed ‘hot’ tumors, type I interferon (IFN) signaling mediates expression of various chemokines and CD8+ DC lineage facilitates infiltration of CD8+ T cell . In the clinical stage, patients with tumor-infiltrating T cell appeared as an activation of spontaneous immune response and a benefit with immunotherapy, whereas cancer recurrence was detected in patients with a lack of T cell infiltration [9,10]. Therefore, infiltration of T cells is a prognostic
hallmark for positive clinical outcomes and indispensable
for a desired therapeutic effect of immune checkpoint
inhibitors. Type I IFN-mediated immune activation is one
of the essential parts in the regulation of T cell-infiltration
to guide tumor from ‘cold’ to ‘hot’.
IFNs are produced by activation of the innate immune system and mainly controlled anti-viral effect. Additionally, extensive studies suggested the therapeutic effect of IFN as an anti-cancer therapy. Even though both type I and II IFNs are important to promote anti-tumor immunity, only type I IFNs (IFNα and IFNβ) have been shown a favorable clinical outcome and approved for the treatment of cancer . In cancer treatment, type I IFNs are usually used in hematological malignancy such as leukemia, sarcoma, melanoma, and lymphomas. IFNs are mainly injected by PEGylated form to improve clinical effect and stability, however still limited access to particular patients such as hyperbilirubinemia . For that reason, the continuous efforts to develop small-molecule based-IFN inducers have been encouraged in the field of drug discovery.
To facilitate type I IFN signaling for anti-tumor responses, STING (Stimulator of interferon genes) has emerged as an innate immune regulator for the last decade . At first, STING is known to play an important role in type I IFN-mediated innate immunity and anti-viral responses by sensing of DNA virus or self DNA [14,15]. STING is an ER-resident protein and activation of STING by ligand binding leads to translocate from ER to Golgi/ER-Golgi intermediate compartment for recruiting downstream kinase TBK1 . Then, activation of TBK1 promotes signaling cascade for STING-TBK1-IRF3, followed by
phosphorylation of STING and IRF3, then dimerization
of phosphor-IRF3 to trigger IFNB gene transcription, and
eventually resulted in activation of type I IFN signaling
. Based on the critical role of type I IFN signaling in
host immune surveillance of cancer, IFNβ production
by activation of the host STING pathway induced
spontaneous T cell response and tumor regression, which
means STING-mediated type I IFN phenotype as a key
mechanism of action for targeting non-T cell-inflamed
tumor [17,18]. Moreover, pharmacological STING
activation demonstrated a positive therapeutic effect to
overcome the current hurdle for drug-resistance cancer
[19,20]. Therefore, the activation of STING pathway
has been spotlighted for the next generation of cancer
For the discovery of natural ligands for STING, Burdette et al.  firstly reported that cyclic diguanylate (c-di- GMP) from bacteria directly binds STING as a sensor of cyclic dinucleotide (CDN). Since the discovery of c-di- GMP as a second messenger for innate immune response mediated by STING, subsequent studies demonstrated that STING directly recognized not only the bacterial cyclic dinucleotide (CDN) such as c-di-AMP (cyclic diadenylate) or 3,3-cGAMP (Cyclic GMP-AMP) but also the mammalian CDN, 2,3-cGAMP produced by cGAS (Cyclic GMP-AMP synthase) [22-24]. These results led to the development of synthetic CDN derivatives as a new anti-cancer drug for immunotherapy by promoting spontaneous immune response of non-T cell-inflamed tumor. The first synthetic human STING agonist is ADU-S100 (Figure 1), which is mimetic of CDN with alternative phosphate bridge and ADU-S100 remarkably improved anti-tumor efficacy compared to 2,3-cGAMP and suppressed re-challenge of the same tumor [17,18]. Based on these features, ADU-S100 is now on phase 2 clinical trial targeting metastatic and recurrent head and neck cancer combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors . Nonetheless, CDN derivatives are limited in clinical study due to narrow application
of tumors because they were mostly administrated by
intratumoral (IT) injection . To address these issues,
there exist continuous effort for the development of non-
CDN based STING agonists.
DMXAA (also known as ASA404 and Vadimezan, Figure 1) bearing xanthene structure has been known to produce an anti-tumor response in mouse model causing vascular disruption, however, ultimately failed in human clinical trials . Further mechanistic investigation for DMXAAbinding target elucidated that DMXAA is a murine-specific STING agonist, thereby the treatment of DMXAA for type I IFN immunity is only sensitive for mouse STING, not human STING [27,28]. With a structural insight for DMXAA, Zhang et al. discovered a natural xanthaonoid, α-Mangostin (α-MG, Figure 1) binds and stabilized human STING C-terminal domain to activate TBK1-IRF3 cascade, followed by type I IFN signaling, but binding affinity and potency of α-MG are quite controversial compared to cGAMP .
For anti-tumor immunity, the first non-CDN STING agonist embedded with amidobenzimidazole as a pharmacophore was reported by Ramanjulu et al. . Based on the structure information of STING, the design strategy for synthetic STING agonists is two symmetrylinked amidobenzimidazole (diABZI) introducing dimerization of core skeleton (Figure 1). As a result, diABZI dramatically improved the binding affinity and efficacy for STING. diABZI (compound 3) is 400-fold more potent than cGAMP which demonstrated inhibition of tumor growth and improvement of tumor-bearing mice survival by intravenous (i.v.) injection . Moreover, the study of the structure-activity relationship for ABZI monomer was reported for STING agonistic effect . Compound 24b with N-carbobenzyloxy aminopropyl moiety (Figure 1) effectively activated STING and type I IFN signaling as
a monomeric form, thereby significantly reduced tumor growth even with 0.15 mpk i.v. administration . On the
other hand, the approach targeting much ‘small’ molecule
discovered a new orally available STING agonist, MSA-2,
by phenotypic screening for chemical inducers of IFNβ
secretion (Figure 1) . In the case of MSA-2, the monomer
is not available to bind STING, whereas the non-covalent
pre-dimerization of MSA-2 induced STING binding and
activation . Besides, MSA-2 can accumulate in tumor
tissue due to an acidic tumor microenvironment, which
allowed the systematic administration of STING agonist
. Recently, we reported a study of a new IFN-inducing
compound, 5i with arylpiperazine as a pharmacophore
(Figure 2) that effectively activated IFNβ secretion and
type I IFN immune response in THP-1 human monocyte
cells . By further verification, we demonstrated
5i-mediated immune response appealed in a STINGdependent
manner (Figure 2). These results suggested the
potential ability of a new core skeleton for small-molecule
The therapeutic effect of small-molecules stimulating type I IFN phenotype is now considered to open a new area for cancer immunotherapy. Especially, activation of STING pathway is extremely important for the regulation of type I IFN immune response and anti-cancer effect promoting spontaneous T cell response. The approach developing small-molecules for STING agonists may lead to a shift of drug discovery paradigm in cancer therapy to overcome a low response rate against immune checkpoint inhibitors and cure non-T cell-inflamed tumors.
Authors acknowledge financial supports of Bio & Medical Technology Development Program (NRF- 2019M3E5D4066905) and Priority Research Centers Program (2019R1A6A1A11051471) of the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by Korean government (MSIT).
- Guo ZS. The 2018 Nobel Prize in medicine goes to
cancer immunotherapy (editorial for BMC cancer). BMC
- Palucka K, Banchereau J. Dendritic-Cell-Based
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines. Immunity. 2013;39:38–48.
- Waldmann TA. Immunotherapy: Past, present and
future. Nat Med. 2003;9:269–77.
- Postow MA, Callahan MK, Wolchok JD. Immune
checkpoint blockade in cancer therapy. J Clin Oncol.
- Robert C. A decade of immune-checkpoint inhibitors in
cancer therapy. Nat Commun. 2020;11:10–2.
- Ganesan S, Mehnert J. Biomarkers for Response to
Immune Checkpoint Blockade. Annu Rev Cancer Biol.
- Trujillo JA, Sweis RF, Bao R, Luke JJ. T cell–inflamed
versus Non-T cell–inflamed tumors: a conceptual framework for cancer immunotherapy drug development
and combination therapy selection. Cancer Immunol Res.
- Gajewski TF, Schreiber H, Fu YX. Innate and adaptive
immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. Nat
- Galon J, Pagès F, Marincola FM, Angell HK, Thurin M,
Lugli A, et al. Cancer classification using the Immunoscore:
A worldwide task force. J Transl Med. 2012;10.
- Larson HM. Type, Density, and Location of Immune
Cells Within Human Colorectal Tumors Predict. Jay
Cooke, Priv Bank. 2014;313:437–98.
- Dunn GP, Koebel CM, Schreiber RD. Interferons,
immunity and cancer immunoediting. Nat Rev Immunol.
- Zwirtes R, Narasimhan P, Wind-Rotolo MM, Xu
D, Hruska MW, Kishnani N, et al. Mechanisms of
hyperbilirubinemia during peginterferon lambda-1a
therapy for chronic hepatitis c infection: A retrospective
investigation. J Interf Cytokine Res. 2016;36:644–51.
- Sheridan C. Drug developers switch gears to inhibit
STING. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37:199–201.
- Ahn J, Gutman D, Saijo S, Barber GN. STING
manifests self DNA-dependent inflammatory disease. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:19386–91.
- Woo SR, Fuertes MB, Corrales L, Spranger S, Furdyna
MJ, Leung MYK, et al. STING-dependent cytosolic
DNA sensing mediates innate immune recognition of
immunogenic tumors. Immunity. 2014;41:830–42.
- Liu S, Cai X, Wu J, Cong Q, Chen X, Li T, et al.
Phosphorylation of innate immune adaptor proteins
MAVS, STING, and TRIF induces IRF3 activation. Science.
(80- ) 2015;347.
- Corrales L, Glickman LH, McWhirter SM, Kanne DB,
Sivick KE, Katibah GE, et al. Direct Activation of STING
in the Tumor Microenvironment Leads to Potent and
Systemic Tumor Regression and Immunity. Cell Rep.
- Sivick KE, Desbien AL, Glickman LH, Reiner GL,
Corrales L, Surh NH, et al. Magnitude of Therapeutic
STING Activation Determines CD8+ T Cell-Mediated
Anti-tumor Immunity. Cell Rep. 2018;25:3074-3085.e5.
- Chipurupalli S, Ganesan R, Dhanabal SP, Kumar
MS, Robinson N. Pharmacological STING Activation Is
a Potential Alternative to Overcome Drug-Resistance in
Melanoma. Front Oncol. 2020;10:1–9.
- Cheng N, Watkins-Schulz R, Junkins RD, David
CN, Johnson BM, Montgomery SA, et al. A nanoparticleincorporated
STING activator enhances antitumor
immunity in PD-L1-insensitive models of triple-negative
breast cancer. JCI Insight .2018;3:1–20.
- Burdette DL, Monroe KM, Sotelo-Troha K, Iwig JS,
Eckert B, Hyodo M, et al. STING is a direct innate immune
sensor of cyclic di-GMP. Nature. 2011;478:515–8.
- Ablasser A, Goldeck M, Cavlar T, Deimling T, Witte
G, Röhl I, et al. CGAS produces a 2'-5'-linked cyclic
dinucleotide second messenger that activates STING.
- Gao P, Ascano M, Zillinger T, Wang W, Dai P,
Serganov AA, et al. Structure-function analysis of STING
activation by c[G(2',5') pA(3',5')p] and targeting by
antiviral DMXAA. Cell. 2013;154:748–62.
- Kato K, Omura H, Ishitani R, Nureki O. Cyclic GMPAMP
as an endogenous second messenger in innate
immune signaling by cytosolic DNA. Science. (80- )
- Naour J Le, Zitvogel L, Galluzzi L, Vacchelli E, Le J,
Zitvogel L, et al. Trial watch : STING agonists in cancer
therapy. Oncoimmunology. 2020;9.
- Lara PN, Douillard JY, Nakagawa K, Von Pawel
J, McKeage MJ, Albert I, et al. Randomized phase III
placebo-controlled trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel
with or without the vascular disrupting agent vadimezan
(ASA404) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin
- Conlon J, Burdette DL, Sharma S, Bhat N, Thompson
M, Jiang Z, et al. Mouse, but not Human STING, Binds
and Signals in Response to the Vascular Disrupting Agent
5,6-Dimethylxanthenone-4-Acetic Acid. J Immunol.
- Kim S, Li L, Maliga Z, Yin Q, Wu H, Mitchison TJ.
Anticancer flavonoids are mouse-selective sting agonists.
ACS Chem Biol. 2013;8:1396–401.
- Zhang Y, Sun Z, Pei J, Luo Q, Zeng X, Li Q, et al.
Identification of a-Mangostin as an Agonist of Human
STING. ChemMedChem. 2018;13:2057–64.
- Ramanjulu JM, Pesiridis GS, Yang J, Concha N,
Singhaus R, Zhang SY, et al. Design of amidobenzimidazole
STING receptor agonists with systemic activity. Nature.
- Xi Q, Wang M, Jia W, Yang M, Hu J, Jin J, et
al. Design, Synthesis, and Biological Evaluation of
Amidobenzimidazole Derivatives as Stimulator of Interferon Genes (STING) Receptor Agonists. J Med
- Pan BS, Perera SA, Piesvaux JA, Presland JP,
Schroeder GK, Cumming JN, et al. An orally available nonnucleotide
STING agonist with antitumor activity. Science.
- Chu Y, Reddy BR, Gajulapalli VP, Babu KS, Kim
E, Lee S. Design, synthesis, and biological evaluation
of N-arylpiperazine derivatives as interferon inducers.
Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters. 2020 Dec