Advertisement
MiniReviews

Nuclear Receptors as Modulators of the Tumor Microenvironment

Mara H. Sherman, Michael Downes and Ronald M. Evans
DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-11-0528 Published January 2012

Abstract

Over the past several decades of cancer research, the inherent complexity of tumors has become increasingly appreciated. In addition to acquired cell-intrinsic properties, tumor initiation and growth is supported by an abundance of parenchymal, inflammatory, and stromal cell types, which infiltrate and surround the tumor. Accumulating evidence shows that numerous components of this supportive milieu, referred to collectively as the tumor microenvironment, are indeed critical during the process of multistep tumorigenesis. These findings highlight the important interplay between neoplastic cells and tumor-associated cell types, and suggest that therapy should target both neoplastic cells and supportive stromal cells to effectively attenuate tumor growth. The nuclear receptor superfamily encompasses a druggable class of molecules expressed in numerous stromal and parenchymal cell types, whose established physiologic roles suggest their potential as therapeutic and preventive targets in the context of the reactive tumor microenvironment. In this minireview, we discuss recent evidence that tumor-associated inflammation, angiogenesis, and fibrosis can be modulated at the transcriptional level by nuclear receptors and their ligands. As these processes have been widely implicated in cancer initiation, progression, and resistance to current therapy, nuclear receptor ligands targeting the tumor microenvironment may be potent antitumor agents in combination therapies, including for preventing cancer development within high-risk populations. Cancer Prev Res; 5(1); 3–10. ©2011 AACR.

Introduction

Solid tumors are no longer viewed simply as clonal expansions of cancer cells. Instead, the current view of the tumorigenic process posits that a tumor is a complex cellular expansion consisting of heterogeneous and ever-evolving cancer cells, as well as their coevolving microenvironment (1, 2). Although alterations in the tumor cell genome have long been thought to drive tumor initiation and progression, the strong influence of nonmalignant cells of the microenvironment on tumor development and growth has been more recently appreciated and is only now beginning to be understood (3). Indeed, solid tumors have come to be defined in part as complex networks of tumor cells in paracrine communication with cells of the microenvironment, including resident fibroblasts, endothelial cells, pericytes, and leukocytes, which serve critical functions in helping the cancer cells meet myriad requirements for their survival (4, 5). For example, release of secreted factors such as TGF-β (6, 7), stromal cell–derived factor 1 (8), and hepatocyte growth factor (9) by stromal fibroblasts has been shown to modulate the oncogenic and metastatic potential of adjacent epithelial tissues. Activated cancer-associated fibroblasts also deposit extracellular matrix (ECM) components that contribute to tumor cell survival and chemoresistance (10–12). In addition, activation of de novo angiogenesis supplies tumor cells with needed nutrients and oxygen, and it is mediated by local stimulation of vascular endothelial cells with pro- and antiangiogenic factors such as VEGF-A and thrombospondin-1 (TSP-1), respectively (13, 14); recruitment of vasculature-supporting pericytes (15) also aids the process of tumor-associated angiogenesis. Together, such tumor-derived factors activate the “angiogenic switch” characteristic of most neoplastic growths—activation of this process, normally dormant in adults, supports tumor growth as well as invasion and metastasis.

Infiltrating leukocytes of the innate and adaptive immune systems also populate the tumor microenvironment, and it has become increasingly apparent that each stage of cancer development is susceptible to regulation by immune cells (16, 17). Infiltrating immune cells engage in a complex cross-talk with tumor cells and other cell types of the tumor microenvironment via both protumorigenic and antitumorigenic mechanisms. Indeed, the same immune or inflammatory cell subtype may exhibit both protumorigenic and antitumorigenic functions. Depending on differentiation status and the presence of TGF-β, neutrophils, for example, show tumor-directed cytotoxicity as well as regulation of cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses in certain contexts and in others produce cytokines, proteases, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) that promote tumor growth (18). Tumor-associated macrophages (TAM) are frequently found in the tumor microenvironment, and recent evidence suggests that the M2 macrophage subtype, commonly characteristic of TAMs, can produce cytokines which promote tumor angiogenesis and tissue remodeling as well as cytokines such as interleukin 10 (IL-10) with tumor-suppressive potential (19, 20). As tumor cells exhibit a remarkable dependence on their microenvironment for growth, the cell types and pathways therein may represent valuable targets for therapy.

Nuclear receptors (NR) are a superfamily of ligand-activated transcription factors that regulate development, cellular differentiation, reproduction, and metabolism of lipids, drugs, and energy (21). As intracellular sensors of lipophilic hormones, vitamins, dietary lipids, or other stimuli, NRs act as transcriptional switches to orchestrate responses to environmental cues at the level of gene expression (22). Genomic sequence availability has led to the identification of 48 NRs encoded by the human genome and 49 NRs encoded by the mouse genome (23–25). In addition to normal metabolic and homeostatic processes, NRs are important regulators of various disease states including diabetes, obesity, atherosclerosis, and cancer (26, 27). The appreciated roles of various NRs in controlling proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis are suggestive of direct antitumor effects for NRs and their ligands on cancer cells, as has been shown in numerous contexts. However, less attention has been paid to the putative therapeutic value of NRs and their ligands in the tumor microenvironment, where regulation by NRs of such processes as fibrosis, angiogenesis, and inflammation may complement cancer cell–targeted chemotherapy to blunt tumor growth.

Although our understanding of the dynamic and extensive interactions between tumor cells and their surroundings remains incomplete, it seems clear that targeting both neoplastic cells and the stromal elements needed for their survival represents a promising avenue for cancer prevention and therapy. Indeed, antiangiogenic strategies for cancer treatment are currently in place (28) and under steady development (29) for use in human patients, whereas endogenous inhibitors of angiogenesis have yielded promising results in mouse models of cancer (30). Compounds targeting inflammation and/or inflammatory immune cell types have also shown encouraging antitumor effects (31). Several nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are appreciated anticancer agents (32), particularly the highly selective COX-2 inhibitors (33, 34), in part, because of their antiangiogenic properties. Accordingly, daily aspirin use has been shown to reduce the risk of developing several common cancer types (35–38). In addition, recent work has shown the utility of CD40 agonists in mice and humans to relieve immune suppression and promote tumoricidal T-cell activity (39–41) or to activate macrophages in a manner that promotes tumor cell killing and depletion of tumor stroma, leading to tumor regression even independent of chemotherapy (42). Similarly, ablation of cancer-associated fibroblasts in several mouse models of cancer, via fibroblast activation protein-targeted vaccination (43) or genetic engineering (44), has been shown to reduce matrix deposition, improve chemotherapeutic drug uptake, and relieve local immune suppression, leading to a reduction in tumor burden. Together, these studies underscore the therapeutic potential of cancer treatment strategies targeting stromal cell types. Expressed in numerous stromal cell types and implicated in multiple cancer-related processes, NRs represent a frequently druggable class of molecules with the intriguing potential to modulate the tumor microenvironment.

Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts and Related Stromal Elements

Cancer-associated fibroblasts or stromal elements produce hormones, growth factors, cytokines, and other factors which may act in a paracrine manner to influence tumor initiation and progression. NRs in various contexts may act to inhibit these tumor-promoting functions of stromal cells. In the pancreas, carcinogenesis is associated with the transdifferentiation of stromal cells called pancreatic stellate cells (PSC) to a myofibroblast-like phenotype (45). PSCs are the main cell type causing the desmoplastic reaction, a dramatic increase in connective tissue or stroma which infiltrates and surrounds the tumor. Desmoplastic stroma is a defining feature of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the most common form of pancreatic cancer (46), and contributes to tumor growth, angiogenesis, invasion, and resistance to therapy (47, 48). Quiescent PSCs act as retinol-storing cells with a limited secretome, whereas activated PSCs in the desmoplastic stroma produce a vast array of secreted proteins implicated in fibrosis, proliferation, cell survival, and wound healing (49). This contrast suggests that restoration of the quiescent PSC phenotype may disrupt PSC–tumor cell communication and impair tumor growth. As retinol stores characterize quiescent PSCs and are lost upon activation, the ability of various forms of retinoic acid (RA) to promote PSC quiescence was investigated. Indeed, treatment of PSCs with RA results in activation of RA receptor β (RARβ) and induction of the quiescent state (Fig. 1). This led to reduced Wnt–β-catenin signaling in adjacent cancer cells, reduced motility, decreased ECM deposition, and slowing of tumor progression (50). Similar effects on stellate cell activation state have been observed by treatment of closely related hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) with 1,25-(OH)2D3, or calcitriol, the active form of vitamin D (51). Subsequent vitamin D receptor (VDR) activation led to decreased HSC proliferation and profibrotic marker expression and to decreased liver fibrosis in vivo. These effects highlight the potential utility of VDR ligands in the reversal of premalignant conditions such as hepatic fibrosis (Fig. 2) and suggest that these ligands may be of value in targeting PSCs in the pancreatic cancer microenvironment.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Sites of action of ligand-activated nuclear receptors in the tumor microenvironment.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Interrelatedness of nuclear receptors and physiologic or pathologic processes connected to cancer.

In the context of breast cancer, stromal tissue also contributes to tumorigenesis and therefore represents a potentially important therapeutic target. In particular, stromal adipose tissue–produced estrogen plays a key role in breast tumor development and progression, highlighting the importance of communications between stromal tissue and tumor cells in the breast cancer microenvironment. The enzyme aromatase (CYP19) catalyzes the synthesis of estrogens from androgenic precursors, and aromatase is expressed in various tissues including ovary, placenta, bone, brain, and adipose tissue (52, 53). Aromatase expression in these different tissues is under the control of tissue-specific promoters and is differentially regulated by various transcription factors (54). In patients with breast cancer, estrogen levels within the breast tissue are substantially higher than serum levels, indicating local synthesis and accumulation of estrogens that can drive breast cancer growth (55). As such, aromatase inhibitors (AI) have become widely used therapeutic agents to prevent the progression or recurrence of breast cancer after primary therapy (56) and recently have been shown to be effective breast cancer prevention (57)—however, as AIs act to inhibit estrogen synthesis globally, their use can be associated with detrimental side effects in tissues which require estrogen for normal function, such as bone (58). Selective compounds which inhibit aromatase expression in the breast but permit estrogen synthesis at other sites are therefore desirable for breast cancer therapy. Several NR ligands have been shown to inhibit the aromatase promoter in a tissue-specific manner. Ligands for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ (PPARγ), such as thiazolidinediones (59), and for the retinoid X receptor, such as the synthetic ligand LG101305 (60), have been shown to inhibit the aromatase promoter in breast adipose stromal tissue. These compounds exhibit specificity for aromatase promoter II, a critical regulatory region in mammary adipose tissue, over the bone-specific promoter I.4 (60). The VDR ligand calcitriol has also been shown to specifically inhibit the aromatase promoter in breast stromal adipose as well as breast cancer cells, while paradoxically increasing aromatase expression in bone (61). Unlike breast cancer, the growth of prostate epithelial cells can be negatively affected by estrogens; specifically, estrogen receptor β (ERβ) activity has been shown to promote differentiation while opposing proliferation in the developing prostate (62), and an ERβ agonist has been shown to promote apoptosis in both the stroma and epithelium of benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer, even in the context of androgen independence (63). Although the precise mechanisms remain to be determined, it was reported that the beneficial impact of ERβ on prostate cancer required intraprostatic stromal–epithelial cell signaling, suggesting the importance of the tumor microenvironment in harnessing the therapeutic value of an ERβ ligand.

In addition to fibroblasts and adipose tissue, bone marrow–derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) are recruited, as suggested recently, to the stroma of developing tumors (64), where they have been shown to increase tumor incidence, size, and metastatic potential (65). The molecular mediators of MSC–tumor cell communication are therefore intriguing targets for therapy. Among them, MSC-secreted chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 5 (CCL5, also called RANTES) was shown to be required for MSC-induced effects on metastasis in breast cancer, although this depends upon breast cancer cell type (66). Impairing the interaction between MSC-produced CCL5 and CC receptor 5, its receptor, on the surface of breast cancer cells may be an exciting avenue for treatment of metastatic disease. In investigations of their anti-inflammatory properties, several NRs including PPARγ (67–69), PPARα (70), and ERα and ERβ (71–73) have been shown to directly or indirectly inhibit CCL5 expression in various contexts. Although NR expression profiling has not been done on tumor-associated MSCs, the therapeutic targeting of these or other anti-inflammatory NRs might be helpful in disabling MSC–cancer cell communication that contributes to tumor growth and metastasis.

Angiogenesis

Neovascularization is required to provide tumors with essential nutrients, oxygen, and removal of metabolic waste. Endogenous inhibitors of angiogenesis have been shown to impair tumor growth, and NR ligands may serve as pharmacologic means to retard the angiogenic process. Indeed, agonists for VDR have been shown to inhibit tumor-induced angiogenesis in multiple sites including the colon (74), lung (75), prostate (76), and skin (77). Interestingly, VDR agonists induce apoptosis and cell-cycle arrest in tumor-derived endothelial cells (TDEC), yet these effects are not observed in endothelial cells isolated from normal tissues or from Matrigel plugs (78). These differential antiproliferative effects are appealing from a therapeutic standpoint and may be explained in part by epigenetic silencing of the vitamin D–degrading enzyme CYP24A1 in TDECs (79). Similarly, PPARα activation inhibits tumor angiogenesis in a cancer cell–nonautonomous manner by suppressing endothelial cell proliferation and VEGF production and by increasing expression of antiangiogenic TSP-1 and endostatin (80). Likewise, inhibitors of NOX1, an enzyme which generates ROS, have been shown to block tumor angiogenesis in a PPARα-dependent manner (81). PPARγ activation has also been shown to oppose endothelial cell proliferation and inhibit angiogenesis in multiple cancer types both via cancer cell–autonomous functions, such as promoting cell-cycle arrest, differentiation, and apoptosis, and via cancer cell–nonautonomous functions, including inhibition of the angiogenesis-promoting factors COX-2, VEGF, and basic fibroblast growth factor (82). These findings in the context of tumor angiogenesis are particularly interesting, given that both PPARα and PPARγ have an established proangiogenic function in cardiovascular disease and diabetes (83), highlighting the context dependence of NR ligands and their physiologic outcomes.

Ligands for the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) have also been shown to inhibit tumor angiogenesis and tumor growth in vivo, both by decreasing VEGF and IL-8 production by tumor cells (84), leading to decreased microvessel density in vivo, and by blocking tube-like structure formation by vascular endothelial cells (85). These findings led in part to the development of a phase II clinical trial of combined treatment with the GR ligand dexamethasone and the VDR ligand calcitriol for castration-resistant prostate cancer (86), as antiangiogenic agents had previously yielded some of the most promising results for these patients with otherwise limited treatment options (87). Although the trial failed to produce a clinical response, alterations to therapeutic delivery, including the use of liposomal glucocorticoids (88), are currently under investigation and have yielded some promising results. Collectively, these findings point to NRs and their ligands as context-dependent antiangiogenic agents which may be beneficial in inhibiting tumor-associated neovascularization.

Inflammation and Immune Surveillance

Infiltrating cells of the immune system serve both tumor-antagonizing and tumor-promoting roles in the tumor microenvironment. Targeting NRs may be of value in both the activation of tumor cell–killing responses and inhibition of tumor-promoting inflammation. PPARγ, for example, has widespread anti-inflammatory roles in the immune system and has long been appreciated as a negative regulator of activation of monocytes (89), macrophages (90), and T lymphocytes (91). As these immune cell types play key roles in cancer-associated inflammation, PPARγ is regarded as a promising novel agent to target inflammatory pathways in epithelial malignancies (92). In addition to suppressing tumor-promoting inflammation, PPARγ may also serve to promote tumor-antagonizing immune function on the basis of its established function in noncancer contexts. Recent work has shown that PPARγ activation in dendritic cells coordinately regulates the CD1 cell-surface glycoproteins, which are responsible for the presentation of self- and foreign-modified lipids. Specifically, PPARγ activation leads to a reduction in CD1a levels and an increase in expression of CD1d, which in turn promotes the selective induction of invariant natural killer T (iNKT) cell expansion (93). These IFNγ-producing iNKT cells have been shown to promote tumor antigen–specific cytotoxic T-cell responses (94), although a direct connection between PPARγ activation and iNKT cell–mediated antitumor toxicity has not been shown.

Another NR, RA-related orphan receptor γt (RORγt), has been shown to play a critical role in the differentiation of NKp46+ lymphoid tissue-inducer (LTi) cells (95). LTi cells in turn produce IL-12, which induces expression of adhesion molecules within tumor-associated vessels and promotes the invasion of leukocytes into the tumor (96). RORγt also directs the differentiation of T helper 17 (TH17) cells, which display antitumorigenic activities in certain contexts (97). RA has been shown to reciprocally inhibit TH17 cell differentiation and promote T regulatory (Treg) cell differentiation by inhibiting expression of RORγt (98). Treg cells have also been shown to suppress antitumor immunity (99). Therefore, compounds with the opposite effect, which is to promote RORγt expression and/or function, may also help to tip the immunologic balance toward antitumor immunity.

The broad anti-inflammatory functions of other NRs make them appealing therapeutic targets in the tumor microenvironment. VDR, for example, was identified by use of a systems biology approach as the best candidate master regulator of a genetic network that suppresses both inflammation and promotes tissue barrier function (100), leading to a predicted decrease in cancer susceptibility in skin. A connection between the anti-inflammatory function of VDR and decreased cancer risk has been shown in other tissues as well, such as colon (101) and prostate (102) tissue, and though VDR expression has been shown in a number of immune cell types, the precise cell types and mechanisms important for this VDR-mediated anti-inflammatory function remain to be determined. Taken together, the established roles of NRs in various cell types of the immune system point to several avenues for therapeutic potential in the tumor microenvironment.

Concluding Remarks

In this review, we highlight recent findings which reveal the therapeutic promise of NRs and their ligands in various cell types of importance to tumor initiation, progression, and metastasis. Beyond this simplified discussion, evidence exists for tumor-promoting roles of NRs in certain tissues or tumor types, suggesting that the therapeutic potential of any NR ligand is likely to be highly context specific. The interrelatedness of inflammation, epithelial integrity, and tumor susceptibility is increasingly appreciated, and evidence for this interrelationship stems in part from the increased risk for cancer development among patients with chronic inflammatory diseases. NRs have established beneficial roles in a number of these diseases which predispose to cancer, including diabetes, obesity, ulcerative colitis, hepatic fibrosis, and others (Fig. 2). This established benefit suggests that, in addition to the potential use of NR ligands in combinatorial cancer therapies, these drugs may be of great value as preventive measures against cancer development within high-risk populations.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

R.M. Evans is an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and March of Dimes Chair in Molecular and Developmental Biology at the Salk Institute.

Grant Support

This work was supported, in part, by grants from Ipsen/Biomeasure, The Helmsley Charitable Trust, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, NIH (DK062434, DK090962) and National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Project grant 512354. R. Evans is supported in part by a Stand Up to Cancer Dream Team Translational Cancer Research Grant, a Program of the Entertainment Industry Foundation (SU2C-AACR-DT0509). M.H. Sherman is supported by a NIH T32 training grant CA009370.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank E. Ong and S. Ganley for administrative assistance. Chris Liddle for useful discussion.

  • Received November 15, 2011.
  • Revision received November 17, 2011.
  • Accepted November 22, 2011.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Polyak K,
    2. Haviv I,
    3. Campbell IG
    . Co-evolution of tumor cells and their microenvironment. Trends Genet 2009;25:30–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Merlo LM,
    2. Pepper JW,
    3. Reid BJ,
    4. Maley CC
    . Cancer as an evolutionary and ecological process. Nat Rev Cancer 2006;6:924–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Tlsty TD,
    2. Coussens LM
    . Tumor stroma and regulation of cancer development. Annu Rev Pathol 2006;1:119–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hanahan D,
    2. Weinberg RA
    . Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 2011;144:646–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Pietras K,
    2. Ostman A
    . Hallmarks of cancer: interactions with the tumor stroma. Exp Cell Res 2010;316:1324–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Bhowmick NA,
    2. Chytil A,
    3. Plieth D,
    4. Gorska AE,
    5. Dumont N,
    6. Shappell S,
    7. et al.
    TGF-beta signaling in fibroblasts modulates the oncogenic potential of adjacent epithelia. Science 2004;303:848–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Bhowmick NA,
    2. Neilson EG,
    3. Moses HL
    . Stromal fibroblasts in cancer initiation and progression. Nature 2004;432:332–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Orimo A,
    2. Gupta PB,
    3. Sgroi DC,
    4. Arenzana-Seisdedos F,
    5. Delaunay T,
    6. Naeem R,
    7. et al.
    Stromal fibroblasts present in invasive human breast carcinomas promote tumor growth and angiogenesis through elevated SDF-1/CXCL12 secretion. Cell 2005;121:335–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Cheng N,
    2. Chytil A,
    3. Shyr Y,
    4. Joly A,
    5. Moses HL
    . Transforming growth factor-beta signaling-deficient fibroblasts enhance hepatocyte growth factor signaling in mammary carcinoma cells to promote scattering and invasion. Mol Cancer Res 2008;6:1521–33.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Liotta LA,
    2. Kohn EC
    . The microenvironment of the tumour-host interface. Nature 2001;411:375–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Pupa SM,
    2. Menard S,
    3. Forti S,
    4. Tagliabue E
    . New insights into the role of extracellular matrix during tumor onset and progression. J Cell Physiol 2002;192:259–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Wiseman BS,
    2. Werb Z
    . Stromal effects on mammary gland development and breast cancer. Science 2002;296:1046–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Hanahan D,
    2. Folkman J
    . Patterns and emerging mechanisms of the angiogenic switch during tumorigenesis. Cell 1996;86:353–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Baeriswyl V,
    2. Christofori G
    . The angiogenic switch in carcinogenesis. Semin Cancer Biol 2009;19:329–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Bergers G,
    2. Song S
    . The role of pericytes in blood-vessel formation and maintenance. Neuro Oncol 2005;7:452–64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. de Visser KE,
    2. Eichten A,
    3. Coussens LM
    . Paradoxical roles of the immune system during cancer development. Nat Rev Cancer 2006;6:24–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Grivennikov SI,
    2. Greten FR,
    3. Karin M
    . Immunity, inflammation, and cancer. Cell 2010;140:883–99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Fridlender ZG,
    2. Sun J,
    3. Kim S,
    4. Kapoor V,
    5. Cheng G,
    6. Ling L,
    7. et al.
    Polarization of tumor-associated neutrophil phenotype by TGF-beta: “N1” versus “N2” TAN. Cancer Cell 2009;16:183–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Sica A,
    2. Allavena P,
    3. Mantovani A
    . Cancer related inflammation: the macrophage connection. Cancer Lett 2008;267:204–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Lin WW,
    2. Karin M
    . A cytokine-mediated link between innate immunity, inflammation, and cancer. J Clin Invest 2007;117:1175–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Sonoda J,
    2. Pei L,
    3. Evans RM
    . Nuclear receptors: decoding metabolic disease. FEBS Lett 2008;582:2–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Evans R
    . A transcriptional basis for physiology. Nat Med 2004;10:1022–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Evans RM
    . The steroid and thyroid hormone receptor superfamily. Science 1988;240:889–95.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Bookout AL,
    2. Jeong Y,
    3. Downes M,
    4. Yu RT,
    5. Evans RM,
    6. Mangelsdorf DJ
    . Anatomical profiling of nuclear receptor expression reveals a hierarchical transcriptional network. Cell 2006;126:789–99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Barish GD,
    2. Downes M,
    3. Alaynick WA,
    4. Yu RT,
    5. Ocampo CB,
    6. Bookout AL,
    7. et al.
    A nuclear receptor atlas: macrophage activation. Mol Endocrinol 2005;19:2466–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. McKenna NJ,
    2. Cooney AJ,
    3. DeMayo FJ,
    4. Downes M,
    5. Glass CK,
    6. Lanz RB,
    7. et al.
    Minireview: Evolution of NURSA, the nuclear receptor signaling atlas. Mol Endocrinol 2009;23:740–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Mangelsdorf DJ,
    2. Thummel C,
    3. Beato M,
    4. Herrlich P,
    5. Schutz G,
    6. Umesono K,
    7. et al.
    The nuclear receptor superfamily: the second decade. Cell 1995;83:835–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Bergers G,
    2. Benjamin LE
    . Tumorigenesis and the angiogenic switch. Nat Rev Cancer 2003;3:401–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Folkman J
    . Angiogenesis. Annu Rev Med 2006;57:1–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Nyberg P,
    2. Xie L,
    3. Kalluri R
    . Endogenous inhibitors of angiogenesis. Cancer Res 2005;65:3967–79.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Nakanishi M,
    2. Menoret A,
    3. Tanaka T,
    4. Miyamoto S,
    5. Montrose DC,
    6. Vella AT,
    7. et al.
    Selective PGE(2) suppression inhibits colon carcinogenesis and modifies local mucosal immunity. Cancer Prev Res 2011;4:1198–208.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Thun MJ,
    2. Henley SJ,
    3. Patrono C
    . Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as anticancer agents: mechanistic, pharmacologic, and clinical issues. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:252–66.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Mao JT,
    2. Roth MD,
    3. Fishbein MC,
    4. Aberle DR,
    5. Zhang ZF,
    6. Rao JY,
    7. et al.
    Lung cancer chemoprevention with celecoxib in former smokers. Cancer Prev Res 2011;4:984–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Fischer SM,
    2. Hawk ET,
    3. Lubet RA
    . Coxibs and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in animal models of cancer chemoprevention. Cancer Prev Res 2011;4:1728–35.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Rothwell PM,
    2. Fowkes FG,
    3. Belch JF,
    4. Ogawa H,
    5. Warlow CP,
    6. Meade TW
    . Effect of daily aspirin on long-term risk of death due to cancer: analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. Lancet 2011;377:31–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Burn J,
    2. Gerdes AM,
    3. Macrae F,
    4. Mecklin JP,
    5. Moeslein G,
    6. Olschwang S,
    7. et al.
    Long-term effect of aspirin on cancer risk in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer: an analysis from the CAPP2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011 Oct 27. [Epub ahead of print].
  37. 37.↵
    1. Burn J,
    2. Bishop DT,
    3. Chapman PD,
    4. Elliott F,
    5. Bertario L,
    6. Dunlop MG,
    7. et al.
    A randomized placebo-controlled prevention trial of aspirin and/or resistant starch in young people with familial adenomatous polyposis. Cancer Prev Res 2011;4:655–65.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Chan AT,
    2. Arber N,
    3. Burn J,
    4. Whay-Kuang Chia J,
    5. Elwood P,
    6. Hull MA,
    7. et al.
    Aspirin in the chemoprevention of colorectal neoplasia: an overview. Cancer Prev Res 2012;5:61–72.
  39. 39.↵
    1. French RR,
    2. Chan HT,
    3. Tutt AL,
    4. Glennie MJ
    . CD40 antibody evokes a cytotoxic T-cell response that eradicates lymphoma and bypasses T-cell help. Nat Med 1999;5:548–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Diehl L,
    2. den Boer AT,
    3. Schoenberger SP,
    4. van der Voort EI,
    5. Schumacher TN,
    6. Melief CJ,
    7. et al.
    CD40 activation in vivo overcomes peptide-induced peripheral cytotoxic T-lymphocyte tolerance and augments anti-tumor vaccine efficacy. Nat Med 1999;5:774–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Sotomayor EM,
    2. Borrello I,
    3. Tubb E,
    4. Rattis FM,
    5. Bien H,
    6. Lu Z,
    7. et al.
    Conversion of tumor-specific CD4+ T-cell tolerance to T-cell priming through in vivo ligation of CD40. Nat Med 1999;5:780–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Beatty GL,
    2. Chiorean EG,
    3. Fishman MP,
    4. Saboury B,
    5. Teitelbaum UR,
    6. Sun W,
    7. et al.
    CD40 agonists alter tumor stroma and show efficacy against pancreatic carcinoma in mice and humans. Science 2011;331:1612–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Loeffler M,
    2. Kruger JA,
    3. Niethammer AG,
    4. Reisfeld RA
    . Targeting tumor-associated fibroblasts improves cancer chemotherapy by increasing intratumoral drug uptake. J Clin Invest 2006;116:1955–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Kraman M,
    2. Bambrough PJ,
    3. Arnold JN,
    4. Roberts EW,
    5. Magiera L,
    6. Jones JO,
    7. et al.
    Suppression of antitumor immunity by stromal cells expressing fibroblast activation protein-alpha. Science 2010;330:827–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Vonlaufen A,
    2. Phillips PA,
    3. Xu Z,
    4. Goldstein D,
    5. Pirola RC,
    6. Wilson JS,
    7. et al.
    Pancreatic stellate cells and pancreatic cancer cells: an unholy alliance. Cancer Res 2008;68:7707–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Jemal A,
    2. Siegel R,
    3. Ward E,
    4. Hao Y,
    5. Xu J,
    6. Thun MJ
    . Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:225–49.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Omary MB,
    2. Lugea A,
    3. Lowe AW,
    4. Pandol SJ
    . The pancreatic stellate cell: a star on the rise in pancreatic diseases. J Clin Invest 2007;117:50–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Olive KP,
    2. Jacobetz MA,
    3. Davidson CJ,
    4. Gopinathan A,
    5. McIntyre D,
    6. Honess D,
    7. et al.
    Inhibition of Hedgehog signaling enhances delivery of chemotherapy in a mouse model of pancreatic cancer. Science 2009;324:1457–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Wehr AY,
    2. Furth EE,
    3. Sangar V,
    4. Blair IA,
    5. Yu KH
    . Analysis of the human pancreatic stellate cell secreted proteome. Pancreas 2011;40:557–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Froeling FE,
    2. Feig C,
    3. Chelala C,
    4. Dobson R,
    5. Mein CE,
    6. Tuveson DA,
    7. et al.
    Retinoic acid-induced pancreatic stellate cell quiescence reduces paracrine Wnt-beta-catenin signaling to slow tumor progression. Gastroenterology 2011;141:1486–97.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Abramovitch S,
    2. Dahan-Bachar L,
    3. Sharvit E,
    4. Weisman Y,
    5. Tov AB,
    6. Brazowski E,
    7. et al.
    Vitamin D inhibits proliferation and profibrotic marker expression in hepatic stellate cells and decreases thioacetamide-induced liver fibrosis in rats. Gut 2011;60:1728–37.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. Subbaramaiah K,
    2. Howe LR,
    3. Bhardwaj P,
    4. Du B,
    5. Gravaghi C,
    6. Yantiss RK,
    7. et al.
    Obesity is associated with inflammation and elevated aromatase expression in the mouse mammary gland. Cancer Prev Res 2011;4:329–46.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. Morris PG,
    2. Hudis CA,
    3. Giri D,
    4. Morrow M,
    5. Falcone DJ,
    6. Zhou XK,
    7. et al.
    Inflammation and increased aromatase expression occur in the breast tissue of obese women with breast cancer. Cancer Prev Res 2011;4:1021–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    1. Simpson ER,
    2. Clyne C,
    3. Rubin G,
    4. Boon WC,
    5. Robertson K,
    6. Britt K,
    7. et al.
    Aromatase–a brief overview. Annu Rev Physiol 2002;64:93–127.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Brodie A,
    2. Long B,
    3. Lu Q
    . Aromatase expression in the human breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998;49 Suppl 1:S85–91; discussion S109-19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Geisler J,
    2. Lonning PE
    . Aromatase inhibition: translation into a successful therapeutic approach. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:2809–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. 57.↵
    1. Goss PE,
    2. Ingle JN,
    3. Ales-Martinez JE,
    4. Cheung AM,
    5. Chlebowski RT,
    6. Wactawski-Wende J,
    7. et al.
    Exemestane for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2381–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Mincey BA,
    2. Duh MS,
    3. Thomas SK,
    4. Moyneur E,
    5. Marynchencko M,
    6. Boyce SP,
    7. et al.
    Risk of cancer treatment-associated bone loss and fractures among women with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Clin Breast Cancer 2006;7:127–32.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Rubin GL,
    2. Zhao Y,
    3. Kalus AM,
    4. Simpson ER
    . Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma ligands inhibit estrogen biosynthesis in human breast adipose tissue: possible implications for breast cancer therapy. Cancer Res 2000;60:1604–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. 60.↵
    1. Rubin GL,
    2. Duong JH,
    3. Clyne CD,
    4. Speed CJ,
    5. Murata Y,
    6. Gong C,
    7. et al.
    Ligands for the peroxisomal proliferator-activated receptor gamma and the retinoid X receptor inhibit aromatase cytochrome P450 (CYP19) expression mediated by promoter II in human breast adipose. Endocrinology 2002;143:2863–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Krishnan AV,
    2. Swami S,
    3. Peng L,
    4. Wang J,
    5. Moreno J,
    6. Feldman D
    . Tissue-selective regulation of aromatase expression by calcitriol: implications for breast cancer therapy. Endocrinology 2010;151:32–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Imamov O,
    2. Morani A,
    3. Shim GJ,
    4. Omoto Y,
    5. Thulin-Andersson C,
    6. Warner M,
    7. et al.
    Estrogen receptor beta regulates epithelial cellular differentiation in the mouse ventral prostate. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:9375–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. 63.↵
    1. McPherson SJ,
    2. Hussain S,
    3. Balanathan P,
    4. Hedwards SL,
    5. Niranjan B,
    6. Grant M,
    7. et al.
    Estrogen receptor-beta activated apoptosis in benign hyperplasia and cancer of the prostate is androgen independent and TNFalpha mediated. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107:3123–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. 64.↵
    1. Hall B,
    2. Andreeff M,
    3. Marini F
    . The participation of mesenchymal stem cells in tumor stroma formation and their application as targeted-gene delivery vehicles. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2007:263–83.
  65. 65.↵
    1. Klopp AH,
    2. Gupta A,
    3. Spaeth E,
    4. Andreeff M,
    5. Marini F 3rd
    . Concise review: dissecting a discrepancy in the literature: do mesenchymal stem cells support or suppress tumor growth? Stem Cells 2011;29:11–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Karnoub AE,
    2. Dash AB,
    3. Vo AP,
    4. Sullivan A,
    5. Brooks MW,
    6. Bell GW,
    7. et al.
    Mesenchymal stem cells within tumour stroma promote breast cancer metastasis. Nature 2007;449:557–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    1. Cha B,
    2. Lim JW,
    3. Kim KH,
    4. Kim H
    . 15-deoxy-D12,14-prostaglandin J2 suppresses RANTES expression by inhibiting NADPH oxidase activation in Helicobacter pylori-infected gastric epithelial cells. J Physiol Pharmacol 2011;62:167–74.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Zhu M,
    2. Flynt L,
    3. Ghosh S,
    4. Mellema M,
    5. Banerjee A,
    6. Williams E,
    7. et al.
    Anti-inflammatory effects of thiazolidinediones in human airway smooth muscle cells. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 2011;45:111–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Gosset P,
    2. Charbonnier AS,
    3. Delerive P,
    4. Fontaine J,
    5. Staels B,
    6. Pestel J,
    7. et al.
    Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma activators affect the maturation of human monocyte-derived dendritic cells. Eur J Immunol 2001;31:2857–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    1. Kitajima K,
    2. Miura S,
    3. Mastuo Y,
    4. Uehara Y,
    5. Saku K
    . Newly developed PPAR-alpha agonist (R)-K-13675 inhibits the secretion of inflammatory markers without affecting cell proliferation or tube formation. Atherosclerosis 2009;203:75–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. Brown CM,
    2. Mulcahey TA,
    3. Filipek NC,
    4. Wise PM
    . Production of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines during neuroinflammation: novel roles for estrogen receptors alpha and beta. Endocrinology 2010;151:4916–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    1. Kanda N,
    2. Watanabe S
    . 17beta-estradiol inhibits the production of RANTES in human keratinocytes. J Invest Dermatol 2003;120:420–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    1. Evans MJ,
    2. Eckert A,
    3. Lai K,
    4. Adelman SJ,
    5. Harnish DC
    . Reciprocal antagonism between estrogen receptor and NF-kappaB activity in vivo . Circ Res 2001;89:823–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. 74.↵
    1. Pendas-Franco N,
    2. Garcia JM,
    3. Pena C,
    4. Valle N,
    5. Palmer HG,
    6. Heinaniemi M,
    7. et al.
    DICKKOPF-4 is induced by TCF/beta-catenin and upregulated in human colon cancer, promotes tumour cell invasion and angiogenesis and is repressed by 1alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3. Oncogene 2008;27:4467–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    1. Nakagawa K,
    2. Sasaki Y,
    3. Kato S,
    4. Kubodera N,
    5. Okano T
    . 22-Oxa-1alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 inhibits metastasis and angiogenesis in lung cancer. Carcinogenesis 2005;26:1044–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. 76.↵
    1. Krishnan AV,
    2. Peehl DM,
    3. Feldman D
    . The role of vitamin D in prostate cancer. Recent Results Cancer Res 2003;164:205–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    1. Majewski S,
    2. Skopinska M,
    3. Marczak M,
    4. Szmurlo A,
    5. Bollag W,
    6. Jablonska S
    . Vitamin D3 is a potent inhibitor of tumor cell-induced angiogenesis. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc 1996;1:97–101.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    1. Chung I,
    2. Wong MK,
    3. Flynn G,
    4. Yu WD,
    5. Johnson CS,
    6. Trump DL
    . Differential antiproliferative effects of calcitriol on tumor-derived and matrigel-derived endothelial cells. Cancer Res 2006;66:8565–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. 79.↵
    1. Chung I,
    2. Karpf AR,
    3. Muindi JR,
    4. Conroy JM,
    5. Nowak NJ,
    6. Johnson CS,
    7. et al.
    Epigenetic silencing of CYP24 in tumor-derived endothelial cells contributes to selective growth inhibition by calcitriol. J Biol Chem 2007;282:8704–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. 80.↵
    1. Panigrahy D,
    2. Kaipainen A,
    3. Huang S,
    4. Butterfield CE,
    5. Barnes CM,
    6. Fannon M,
    7. et al.
    PPARalpha agonist fenofibrate suppresses tumor growth through direct and indirect angiogenesis inhibition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105:985–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. 81.↵
    1. Garrido-Urbani S,
    2. Jemelin S,
    3. Deffert C,
    4. Carnesecchi S,
    5. Basset O,
    6. Szyndralewiez C,
    7. et al.
    Targeting vascular NADPH oxidase 1 blocks tumor angiogenesis through a PPARalpha mediated mechanism. PLoS One 2011;6:e14665.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    1. Panigrahy D,
    2. Huang S,
    3. Kieran MW,
    4. Kaipainen A
    . PPARgamma as a therapeutic target for tumor angiogenesis and metastasis. Can Bio Therapy 2005;4:687–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. 83.↵
    1. Desouza CV,
    2. Rentschler L,
    3. Fonseca V
    . Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors as stimulants of angiogenesis in cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 2009;2:165–72.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    1. Yano A,
    2. Fujii Y,
    3. Iwai A,
    4. Kageyama Y,
    5. Kihara K
    . Glucocorticoids suppress tumor angiogenesis and in vivo growth of prostate cancer cells. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12:3003–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  85. 85.↵
    1. Logie JJ,
    2. Ali S,
    3. Marshall KM,
    4. Heck MM,
    5. Walker BR,
    6. Hadoke PW
    . Glucocorticoid-mediated inhibition of angiogenic changes in human endothelial cells is not caused by reductions in cell proliferation or migration. PLoS One 2010;5:e14476.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. 86.↵
    1. Chadha MK,
    2. Tian L,
    3. Mashtare T,
    4. Payne V,
    5. Silliman C,
    6. Levine E,
    7. et al.
    Phase 2 trial of weekly intravenous 1,25 dihydroxy cholecalciferol (calcitriol) in combination with dexamethasone for castration-resistant prostate cancer. Cancer 2010;116:2132–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    1. Merino M,
    2. Pinto A,
    3. Gonzalez R,
    4. Espinosa E
    . Antiangiogenic agents and endothelin antagonists in advanced castration resistant prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 2011;47:1846–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.↵
    1. Banciu M,
    2. Metselaar JM,
    3. Schiffelers RM,
    4. Storm G
    . Liposomal glucocorticoids as tumor-targeted anti-angiogenic nanomedicine in B16 melanoma-bearing mice. J Steroid Biochem Mol Bio 2008;111:101–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. 89.↵
    1. Jiang C,
    2. Ting AT,
    3. Seed B
    . PPAR-gamma agonists inhibit production of monocyte inflammatory cytokines. Nature 1998;391:82–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. 90.↵
    1. Ricote M,
    2. Li AC,
    3. Willson TM,
    4. Kelly CJ,
    5. Glass CK
    . The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma is a negative regulator of macrophage activation. Nature 1998;391:79–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. 91.↵
    1. Yang XY,
    2. Wang LH,
    3. Chen T,
    4. Hodge DR,
    5. Resau JH,
    6. DaSilva L,
    7. et al.
    Activation of human T lymphocytes is inhibited by peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARgamma) agonists. PPARgamma co-association with transcription factor NFAT. J Biol Chem 2000;275:4541–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. 92.↵
    1. Demaria S,
    2. Pikarsky E,
    3. Karin M,
    4. Coussens LM,
    5. Chen YC,
    6. El-Omar EM,
    7. et al.
    Cancer and inflammation: promise for biologic therapy. J Immunother 2010;33:335–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. 93.↵
    1. Szatmari I,
    2. Gogolak P,
    3. Im JS,
    4. Dezso B,
    5. Rajnavolgyi E,
    6. Nagy L
    . Activation of PPARgamma specifies a dendritic cell subtype capable of enhanced induction of iNKT cell expansion. Immunity 2004;21:95–106.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. 94.↵
    1. Moreno M,
    2. Molling JW,
    3. von Mensdorff-Pouilly S,
    4. Verheijen RH,
    5. Hooijberg E,
    6. Kramer D,
    7. et al.
    IFN-gamma-producing human invariant NKT cells promote tumor-associated antigen-specific cytotoxic T cell responses. J Immunol 2008;181:2446–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  95. 95.↵
    1. Sanos SL,
    2. Bui VL,
    3. Mortha A,
    4. Oberle K,
    5. Heners C,
    6. Johner C,
    7. et al.
    RORgammat and commensal microflora are required for the differentiation of mucosal interleukin 22-producing NKp46+ cells. Nat Immunol 2009;10:83–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. 96.↵
    1. Eisenring M,
    2. vom Berg J,
    3. Kristiansen G,
    4. Saller E,
    5. Becher B
    . IL-12 initiates tumor rejection via lymphoid tissue-inducer cells bearing the natural cytotoxicity receptor NKp46. Nat Immunol 2010;11:1030–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. 97.↵
    1. Zou W,
    2. Restifo NP
    . T(H)17 cells in tumour immunity and immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol 2010;10:248–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. 98.↵
    1. Mucida D,
    2. Park Y,
    3. Kim G,
    4. Turovskaya O,
    5. Scott I,
    6. Kronenberg M,
    7. et al.
    Reciprocal TH17 and regulatory T cell differentiation mediated by retinoic acid. Science 2007;317:256–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  99. 99.↵
    1. Smyth MJ,
    2. Teng MW,
    3. Swann J,
    4. Kyparissoudis K,
    5. Godfrey DI,
    6. Hayakawa Y
    . CD4+CD25 +T regulatory cells suppress NK cell-mediated immunotherapy of cancer. J Immunol 2006;176:1582–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  100. 100.↵
    1. Quigley DA,
    2. To MD,
    3. Perez-Losada J,
    4. Pelorosso FG,
    5. Mao JH,
    6. Nagase H,
    7. et al.
    Genetic architecture of mouse skin inflammation and tumour susceptibility. Nature 2009;458:505–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. 101.↵
    1. Appleyard CB,
    2. Cruz ML,
    3. Isidro AA,
    4. Arthur JC,
    5. Jobin C,
    6. De Simone C
    . Pretreatment with the probiotic Vsl#3 delays transition from inflammation to dysplasia in a rat model of colitis-associated cancer. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2011 Sep 8. [Epub ahead of print].
  102. 102.↵
    1. Adorini L,
    2. Penna G,
    3. Amuchastegui S,
    4. Cossetti C,
    5. Aquilano F,
    6. Mariani R,
    7. et al.
    Inhibition of prostate growth and inflammation by the vitamin D receptor agonist BXL-628 (elocalcitol). J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2007;103:689–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
Back to top
Cancer Prevention Research: 5 (1)
January 2012
Volume 5, Issue 1

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Nuclear Receptors as Modulators of the Tumor Microenvironment
Mara H. Sherman, Michael Downes and Ronald M. Evans
Cancer Prev Res January 1 2012 (5) (1) 3-10; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-11-0528
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Advertisement