No abstract

Group 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2) are essential to maintain tissue homeostasis. In cancer, ILC2 can harbor both pro- and anti-tumorigenic functions but we know very little about their underlying mechanisms, nor whether they could be clinically relevant or targeted to improve patient outcomes. Here, we found that high ILC2 infiltration in human melanoma was associated with a good clinical prognosis. ILC2 are critical producers of the cytokine granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) which coordinate the recruitment and activation of eosinophils to enhance anti-tumor responses. Tumor-infiltrating ILC2 expressed programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1), which limited their intratumoral accumulation, proliferation and anti-tumor effector functions. This inhibition could be overcome in vivo by combining IL-33-driven ILC2 activation with PD-1 blockade to significantly increase anti-tumor responses. Together, our results identified ILC2 as a critical immune cell type involved in melanoma immunity and revealed a potential synergistic approach to harness ILC2 function for anti-tumor immunotherapies.

No abstract

The recognition of the immune system as a key component of the tumor microenvironment (TME) led to promising therapeutics. Because such therapies benefit only subsets of patients, understanding the activities of immune cells in the TME is required. Eosinophils are an integral part of the TME especially in mucosal tumors. Nonetheless, their role in the TME and the environmental cues that direct their activities are largely unknown. We report that breast cancer lung metastases are characterized by resident and recruited eosinophils. Eosinophil recruitment to the metastatic sites in the lung was regulated by G protein–coupled receptor signaling but independent of CCR3. Functionally, eosinophils promoted lymphocyte-mediated antitumor immunity. Transcriptome and proteomic analyses identified the TME rather than intrinsic differences between eosinophil subsets as a key instructing factor directing antitumorigenic eosinophil activities. Specifically, TNFα/IFNγ–activated eosinophils facilitated CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell infiltration and promoted antitumor immunity. Collectively, we identify a mechanism by which the TME trains eosinophils to adopt antitumorigenic properties, which may lead to the development of eosinophil-targeted therapeutics. Significance: These findings demonstrate antitumor activities of eosinophils in the metastatic tumor microenvironment, suggesting that harnessing eosinophil activity may be a viable clinical strategy in patients with cancer.

Eosinophils are multifunctional, evolutionary conserved leukocytes that are involved in a plethora of responses ranging from regulation of tissue homeostasis to host defense and cancer. Eosinophils have been studied mostly in the context of Type 2 inflammatory responses such as those found in allergy. Nonetheless, it is now evident that they participate in Type 1 inflammatory responses and can respond to Type 1 cytokines such as IFN-γ. Recent data suggest that the pleotropic roles of eosinophils are due to heterogeneous responses to environmental cues. Despite this, the activation profile of eosinophils, in response to various stimuli is yet to be defined. To better understand the transcriptional spectrum of eosinophil activation, we exposed eosinophils to Type 1 (e.g. IFN-γ, E. coli) vs. Type 2 (e.g. IL-4) conditions and subjected them to global RNA sequencing. Our analyses show that IL-4, IFN-γ, E. coli and IFN-γ in the presence of E. coli (IFN-γ/E. coli)-stimulated eosinophils acquire distinct transcriptional profiles, which polarize them towards what we termed Type 1 and Type 2 eosinophils. Bioinformatics analyses using Gene Ontology based on biological processes revealed that different stimuli induced distinct pathways in eosinophils. These pathways were confirmed using functional assays by assessing cytokine/chemokine release (i.e. CXCL9, CCL24, TNF-α and IL-6) from eosinophils following activation. In addition, analysis of cell surface markers highlighted CD101 and CD274 as potential cell surface markers that distinguish between Type 1 and Type 2 eosinophils, respectively. Finally, the transcriptome signature of Type 1 eosinophils resembled that of eosinophils that were obtained from mice with experimental colitis whereas the transcriptome signature of Type 2 eosinophils resembled that of eosinophils from experimental asthma. Our data demonstrate that eosinophils are polarized to distinct “Type 1” and “Type 2” phenotypes following distinct stimulations. These findings provide fundamental knowledge regarding the heterogeneity of eosinophils and support the presence of transcriptional differences between Type 1 and Type 2 cells that are likely reflected by their pleotropic activities in diverse disease settings.