Different immunotherapeutic approaches have proved to be of significant clinical value to many patients with different types of advanced cancer. However, we need more precise immunotherapies and predictive biomarkers to increase the successful response rates. The advent of next generation sequencing technologies and their applications in immuno-oncology has helped us tremendously towards this aim. We are now moving towards the realization of personalized medicine, thus, significantly increasing our expectations for a more successful management of the disease. Here, we discuss the current immunotherapeutic approaches against cancer, including immune checkpoint blockade with an emphasis on anti-PD-L1 and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies. We also analyze a growing list of other co-inhibitory and co-stimulatory markers and emphasize the mechanism of action of the principal pathway for each of these, as well as on drugs that either have been FDA-approved or are under clinical investigation. We further discuss recent advances in other immunotherapies, including cytokine therapy, adoptive cell transfer therapy and therapeutic vaccines. We finally discuss the modulation of gut microbiota composition and response to immunotherapy, as well as how tumor-intrinsic factors and immunological processes influence the mutational and epigenetic landscape of progressing tumors and response to immunotherapy but also how immunotherapeutic intervention influences the landscape of cancer neoepitopes and tumor immunoediting.

Post-transcriptional modifications have been recently expanded with the addition of RNA editing, which is predominantly mediated by adenosine and cytidine deaminases acting on DNA and RNA. Here, we review the full spectrum of physiological processes in which these modifiers are implicated, among different organisms. Adenosine to inosine (A-to-I) editors, members of the ADAR and ADAT protein families are important regulators of alternative splicing and transcriptional control. On the other hand, cytidine to uridine (C-to-U) editors, members of the AID/APOBEC family, are heavily implicated in innate and adaptive immunity with important roles in antibody diversification and antiviral response. Physiologically, these enzymes are present in the nucleus and/or the cytoplasm, where they modify various RNA molecules, including miRNAs, tRNAs apart from mRNAs, whereas DNA editing is also possible by some of them. The expansion of next generation sequencing technologies provided a wealth of data regarding such modifications. RNA editing has been implicated in various disorders including cancer, and neurological diseases of the brain or the central nervous system. It is also related to cancer heterogeneity and the onset of carcinogenesis. Response to treatment can also be affected by the RNA editing status where drug efficacy is significantly compromised. Studying RNA editing events can pave the way to the identification of new disease biomarkers, and provide a more personalised therapy to various diseases.

No abstract

Immune responses are traditionally divided into the innate and the adaptive arm, both of which are present in vertebrates, while only the innate arm is found in invertebrates. Immune priming experiments in Drosophila melanogaster and other invertebrates during the last decade have challenged this dogma, questioning the boundaries between innate and adaptive immunity. Studies on repeated inoculation of Drosophila with microbes reveal a long-lasting cellular immunity adaptation against particular microorganisms. Here we study the lasting effect of immune priming against infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, an opportunistic human pathogen that is lethal to the common fruit fly. Drosophila priming with heat-killed or low in virulence P. aeruginosa extends fly survival during a secondary lethal infection with a virulent strain of the same species. The protective immune response can last for more than 10 days after exposure to a persistent low-in-virulence live infection, but it is eliminated 7 days after the host is primed with heat-killed bacteria. Moreover, not only the cellular, but also the systemic NF-κB-mediated immune responses contribute to immune priming. Thus each microbe might elicit different mechanisms of immune priming that may or may not last for long.

Gut microbiota acts as a barrier against intestinal pathogens, but species-specific protection of the host from infection remains relatively unexplored. Although lactobacilli and bifidobacteria produce beneficial lactic and short-chain fatty acids in the mammalian gut, the significance of intestinal Escherichia coli producing these acids is debatable. Taking a Koch’s postulates approach in reverse, we define Escherichia coli as health-promoting for naturally colonizing the gut of healthy mice and protecting them against intestinal colonization and concomitant mortality by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Reintroduction of faecal bacteria and E. coli in antibiotic-treated mice establishes a high titre of E. coli in the host intestine and increases defence against P. aeruginosa colonization and mortality. Strikingly, high sugar concentration favours E. coli fermentation to lactic and acetic acid and inhibits P. aeruginosa growth and virulence in aerobic cultures and in a model of aerobic metabolism in flies, while dietary vegetable fats - not carbohydrates or proteins - favour E. coli fermentation and protect the host in the anaerobic mouse gut. Thus E. coli metabolic output is an important indicator of resistance to infection. Our work may also suggest that the lack of antimicrobial bacterial metabolites in mammalian lungs and wounds allows P. aeruginosa to be a formidable microbe at these sites.