Immunometabolism modulation in therapy

biomedicines Review Immunometabolism Modulation in Therapy Ezequiel Monferrer 1,2 , Sabina Sanegre 1,2 , Isaac Vieco-Martí1,2, Amparo López-Carrasco 1,2, Fernando Fariñas 3, Antonio Villatoro 4, Sergio Abanades 5, Santos Mañes 6, Luis de la Cruz-Merino 7, Rosa Noguera 1,2,* and TomásÁlvaro Naranjo 2,8,9,*   Citation: Monferrer, E.; Sanegre, S.; Vieco-Martí, I.; López-Carrasco, A.; Fariñas, F.; Villatoro, A.; Abanades, S.; Mañes, S.; de la Cruz-Merino, L.; Noguera, R.; et al. Immunometabolism Modulation in Therapy. Biomedicines 2021,9, 798. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/biomedicines9070798 Academic Editor: Marjorie Pion Received: 17 June 2021 Accepted: 6 July 2021 Published: 9 July 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1Department of Pathology, Medical School, University of Valencia–INCLIVA Biomedical Health Research Institute, 46010 Valencia, Spain; [email protected] (E.M.); [email protected] (S.S.); [email protected].es (I.V.-M.); [email protected] (A.L.-C.) 2Low Prevalenc Tumors, Centro de Investigación Biomédica En Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, 28029 Madrid, Spain 3Ynmun Group, Institute of Clinical Immunology and Infectious Diseases, 290015 Málaga, Spain; [email protected] 4Ynmun Group, Institute of Clinical Immunology and Cell Therapy (IMMUNESTEM), 29018 Málaga, Spain; [email protected] 5Integrative and Conscious Health Institute, 08008 Barcelona, Spain; [email protected] 6Centro Nacional de Biotecnología (CNB/CSIC), Department of Immunology and Oncology, 28015 Madrid, Spain; [email protected] 7Clinical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, 41009 Sevilla, Spain; [email protected] 8Department of Pathology, Verge de la Cinta Hospital of Tortosa, Catalan Institute of Health, Institut d’InvestigacióSanitària Pere Virgili (IISPV), 43500 Tortosa, Spain 9Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Medical School, Rovira i Virgili University, 43201 Reus, Spain *Correspondence: [email protected] (R.N.); talvaro.ebr[email protected] (T.Á.N.); Tel.: +34-2304-977-519-104 (T.Á.N.) Abstract: The study of cancer biology should be based around a comprehensive vision of the entire tumor ecosystem, considering the functional, bioenergetic and metabolic state of tumor cells and those of their microenvironment, and placing particular importance on immune system cells. Enhanced understanding of the molecular bases that give rise to alterations of pathways related to tumor development can open up new therapeutic intervention opportunities, such as metabolic regulation applied to immunotherapy. This review outlines the role of various oncometabolites and immunometabolites, such as TCA intermediates, in shaping pro/anti-inflammatory activity of immune cells such as MDSCs, T lymphocytes, TAMs and DCs in cancer. We also discuss the extraordinary plasticity of the immune response and its implication in immunotherapy efficacy, and highlight different therapeutic intervention possibilities based on controlling the balanced systems of specific metabolites with antagonistic functions. Keywords: metabolic reprogramming; immunometabolites; oncometabolites; regulatory balance 1. Introduction The metabolic approach in cancer biology examines the structure and metabolic pathways of the tumor ecosystem, encompassing both tumor cellularity and microenvironment (TME). The functional and bioenergetic characteristics of tumors depend on their alterations, which are linked to tumor etiopathogenesis, initial development, progression and metastasis. Specifically, tumor cells share metabolic pathways with immune cells [ 1 ], establishing resource competition systems, regulating tumor progression, immune response polarization and sensitivity to oncological treatments [ 2 ]. Therefore, therapeutic approaches from the metabolic point of view consider different intervention opportunities based on host immune response, metabolic remodeling of immune cell infiltration, tumor cellularity and other TME elements. Specifically, different tumor metabolites (immunometabolites and oncometabolites) participate in the humoral and cellular immune Biomedicines 2021,9, 798. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9070798 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/biomedicines Biomedicines 2021,9, 798 2 of 18 response, establishing the pro/anti-inflammatory balance, determining the activation of different immune cell subpopulations and regulating immune checkpoint mechanisms. Consequently, metabolic reprogramming of the tumor immune response has acquired special importance in immunotherapy approaches. Immune system plasticity and capacity for metabolic reprogramming [ 3 ] opens up a vast field of research on the metabolic pathways involved in its physiology and pathology, an emerging area of immunometabolism knowledge. The metabolites produced by immune cells, known as immunometabolites [ 4 ] determine cell phenotype and function, act as cofactors of metabolic enzymes and mediate post-translational modifications [ 5 ]. Immunometabolites generated inside the cell can be released, acting on their surrounding environment like cytosines or at a systemic level, regulating different pro/anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Furthermore, immunometabolites influence disease progression and treatment response, thus constituting an emerging focus of interest and knowledge [5]. Tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle intermediate metabolites (TCAis) (acting as oncometabolites in cancer) can trigger processes of programmed cell death, autophagy, inflammation and immune signaling in response to cellular stress, pathogens, toxins or cancer [ 6 ]. TCAis are produced in the mitochondria and are distributed within the mitochondrial membranes due to their polarity and electrophilic properties. Under physiological conditions, they exert their function inside the mitochondria and can be released in a controlled way outside the cells [ 7 ]. Thus, TCAis such as succinate, fumarate, itaconate, 2-hydroxyglutarate (D-2HG and L-2-HG) and acetyl-CoA express a wide range of non-metabolic signaling functions in physiological and pathological immunological contexts [ 8 ], especially activating the innate immune response on myeloid cells [9,10]. In turn, activation of these immune cells regulates the TCA cycle through an immune Warburg effect. In addition, TCAis such as succinate, fumarate, itaconate, citrate and α -ketoglutarate ( α -KG) can also regulate activation of the inflammatory process [ 11 ] through epigenetic mechanisms [ 12 ], reactive oxygen species (ROS) modulation or post-translational modification of other proteins. This review is focused on the regulatory metabolic pathways of both immune and tumor cells, the metabolic differences between stromal and tumor cells and especially the effector and immunosuppressive metabolic pathways of T effectors (T eff ) and memory lymphocytes, M1 and M2 macrophages and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), as well as the role of acidosis and hypoxia in all of these factors. This approach consolidates the hypothesis of cancer as an energy dysfunction [ 13 ], where alterations can be found in the metabolic pathways of fatty acids (FAs), amino acids, nucleic acids and carbohydrates that affect immune dysfunction, allowing clinical tumor development. We conclude by discussing the extraordinary plasticity of the immune response, its role in immunotherapy efficacy and measures to modulate energy metabolism that should be implemented in cancer treatment. 2. Metabolic Pathways of the Tumor Ecosystem 2.1. Metabolic Reprogramming The most widely known metabolic reprogramming process in cancer cells is the Warburg effect [ 14 ]. Compared to normal cells, tumor cells prefer using glycolysis rather than the mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation system (OXPHOS), even in oxygen abundance states [ 15 ]. Although the glycolysis efficiency of ATP production is low, its yield is much faster, providing energy to tumor cells for growth and proliferation. Furthermore, glycolysis allows tumor cells to obtain several building blocks for biomass synthesis [ 16 ]. The oncogene c-MYC and hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1 α ) activate the expression of key enzymes which enhance aerobic glycolysis, the most important of which are glucose transporter 1 (GLUT1), hexokinase 2 (HK2), pyruvate kinase 2 (PKM2) and lactate dehydrogenase A (LDHA) [ 3 , 15 , 16 ]. GLUT1 overexpression increases glucose uptake by tumor cells. HK2 overexpression transforms glucose into glucose-6-phosphate (p), the first step in glycolysis, and enhances its flow to the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP), generating nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate oxidase (NADPH). NADPH is essential Biomedicines 2021,9, 798 3 of 18 to anaerobic processes such as nucleotide synthesis, and also to protect the cell against ROS [15,16]. The regulation of pyruvate metabolism is central in the oncogenic metabolic program since this metabolite is at the crossroads between OXPHOS and lactic acid fermentation. Many cancer cells upregulate the expression of the less active PKM2 isoform, which slows down pyruvate synthesis and permits the diversion of glycolytic intermediates to other anabolic pathways, such as the serine synthesis pathway (SSP), further activating PKM2 [ 17 ]. In addition, cancer cells also downregulate the mitochondrial pyruvate carrier (MPC) complex, in charge of transporting pyruvate from the cytosol into the mitochondrial matrix. Reduced expression of MPC subunits causes the accumulation of pyruvate in the cytosol, thus favoring its conversion to lactate by lactate dehydrogenase (LDHA) [ 18 ]. Lactate is released to the TME via monocarboxylate transporter (MCT), and can be used as fuel by the cells. This is called the lactate shuttle, in which lactate is a linking vehicle between glycolytic and oxidative metabolism [ 19 ]. SSP is enhanced by the oncogene cMYC which mediates the overexpression of several enzymes involved in this metabolic pathway [ 16 , 20 ]. Serine is the precursor for glycine, which itself is a precursor of glutathione. Therefore, tumor cells use SSP to increase glutathione and protect themselves against ROS. Serine is also necessary to initiate the one carbon metabolism (folate cycle and methionine synthesis pathway) essential for synthesis of nucleotides and many other biomolecules [20,21]. Turning to amino acid metabolic reprogramming, glutaminolysis is enhanced in many cancers [ 15 ] since cells can use glutamine as a glucose alternative to obtain energy, and it can also be converted into glutamate and then α -KG. The former is obtained in glutamine lysis by glutaminase and is necessary for nucleotide production and glutathione synthesis [ 22 ]. The latter, α -KG, is a TCA metabolite obtained from glutamate in the mitochondria via different pathways [ 23 ]. α -KG is considered to be an oncometabolite since it can be used to obtain energy, as well as in amino acid and lipid synthesis [15,16]. Lipid pathways are also involved in tumor cell metabolic reprogramming. Sterol regulatory element-binding transcription factor 1 (SREBP1), which upregulates the transcription of many enzymes of the FA synthesis pathway, is overexpressed in several cancers and has an important role in cell survival [ 15 , 16 ]. FA biosynthesis is frequently increased in cancer cells to meet lipid requirements for membrane synthesis, although in many cancer types fatty acid oxidation (FAO) is also enhanced in the mitochondria. The acetyl-CoA carboxylase generated by FAO enters into the TCA cycle for citrate synthesis and ATP energy can be produced by the electron transport chain [15]. Mitochondria therefore connects many essential metabolic pathways such as the folate cycle, glutamine lysis and FAO. Consequently, tumor cells increase mitochondrial biogenesis through the c-MYC oncogene, which transactivates mitochondrial transcription factor A [ 15 ]. Lastly, tumor metabolic reprogramming modifies the TME, regulating the immune response alongside the metabolic reprogramming capacity of immune cells themselves, and thus determining the extent of tumor progression and aggressiveness. 2.2. Metabolic Skewing Induced by Viral Infections Different in vitro and in vivo studies show that many human intracellular viral, bacterial and protozoal pathogens can induce a Warburg-like metabolic state [ 24 , 25 ]. These pathogens hijack the host cell metabolism to redirect glycolysis and TCAis towards amino acid, lipid and nucleotide biosynthesis, which they need for their own nutritional and survival needs. Many intermediaries in the glycolytic pathway are significantly increased after viral infection. Some viruses induce glycolysis to aid replication [ 26 ], or induce metabolic change to counteract the ROS produced by the host during infection response [27,28]. Oncogenic viruses, such as human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis B and C (HBV and HCV), Epstein–Barr (EBV or HHV4), cytomegalovirus (CMV or HHV5), Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) and human herpesvirus 8 (HHV8) [ 29 – 32 ], can induce a Warburg-like effect or altered metabolic status in tumors. For example, human Biomedicines 2021,9, 798 4 of 18 fibroblasts infected with CMV increase glucose consumption and lactate production, typical of Warburg metabolism [ 33 , 34 ]. Proteins formed during HBV replication are capable of manipulating the glucose, lipids and metabolism of nucleic acids, amino acids, vitamins and bile acids [ 35 ]. HBV has been shown to induce hepatocyte damage through dysregulation of aerobic glycolysis and lipid metabolism in a Warburg phenotype [ 36 ]. EBV stimulates oncogenesis and B-lymphocyte proliferation, hijacking mitochondrial metabolic pathways with a Warburg-like profile. As an example of this, in the study by Wang et al., human B lymphocytes were infected with EBV, revealing that shortly after infection EBV promoted oncogenesis by altering mitochondrial metabolism. Culture in a medium rich in galactose instead of glucose significantly affected transformation and proliferation of these cells, showing that glucose is a key carbon source in the transformation of B-lymphocyte metabolism when infected by EBV. EBV also expresses latent membrane protein 1 (LMP1), an oncoprotein that mimics cell CD40 signaling to activate multiple growth pathways [ 37 ]. Activation of B-lymphocyte proliferation by LMP1 has been shown to coincide with aerobic glycolysis induction [ 38 ]. Viruses also lead to production of proteins such as HPV E6 [ 39 ], which modulate central carbon metabolism in infected cells through inactivation or degradation of tumor suppressor genes such as p53 [40]. Importantly, many intracellular pathogens also exert different mechanisms which can improve the stability and activity of proteins such as HIF-1 α [ 41 , 42 ]. HIF-1 α regulates aerobic glycolysis, whose role in carcinogenesis is well established [ 43 ]. HPV E6 protein increases cellular HIF-1 α levels, promoting a Warburg effect [ 44 ]. HCV and HPV also can manipulate infected cell metabolism through HIF-1 α activation [ 45 , 46 ]. Specifically, HCV infection stabilizes HIF-1 α under normoxic conditions, facilitating glycolytic enzyme expression, while HCV-associated mitochondrial dysfunction promotes HIF-1 α -mediated glycolytic adaptation. This provides crucial insight into the pathogenesis of chronic hepatitis C and possibly HCV-related hepatocellular carcinoma [ 47 ]. Similarly, a hypoxic TME can promote the activity and survival of intracellular pathogens. For example, hypoxia can induce EBV reactivation when HIF-1 α binds to the BZLF1 gene for the EBV primary latent-lytic switch [48]. 2.3. Modulation by Exosomes Exosomes have recently been shown to play a fundamental role in communication between cancer cells and TME cells, influencing cancer initiation, progression and metastasis [ 49 ]. Exosomes are endocytic nanovesicles, homogeneous in size (between 40–100 nm), which carry a variety of small molecules (cargo) essential for cell communication. Their cargo includes nucleic acids, proteins and lipids, and their double membrane encapsulation allows them to travel to tissues far away from their origin. Protected from degradation, they can stimulate specific receptors of target cells and horizontally transfer genetic material, triggering a pleiotropic effect [50]. Different microRNA (miRNA) have been isolated in the exosome cargo of different cancer cells. miRNA are non-coding RNA, strategic in the different stages of tumor development and expansion by allowing adaptation to a hostile environment. In early stages, primary tumor exosomes interact with contiguous cells, promoting epithelial transition (miR-200 family), fibroblast conversion into tumor cells (miR-1247-3p, miR-27a, miR-10b, miR-125b), extracellular matrix remodeling (miR-150, miR-23b) and immune system evasion (miR-197, miR-200, miR-203, miR-23a, miR-1246). As the tumor grows, its energy requirements increase beyond its blood supply, and it becomes more hypoxic, enhancing exosome production to promote angiogenesis (miR-9, miR-21, miR-210). This facilitates tumor cell release to the circulation (miR-1227) and spread to distant locations (miR-181c, miR-105, which alter the blood–brain barrier) and creating resistance mechanisms against different drugs (miR-21, miR-155, miR-222, miR-30a, miR-100-5p, miR-196a) [51]. Exosomes also play a strategic role in the metabolic reprogramming exerted in the TME and pre-metastatic niches. This allows cancer cells to adapt to a nutrient-deficient environment, modulating the stromal cells of the tumor niche towards profiles that favor Biomedicines 2021,9, 798 5 of 18 the Warburg effect, promoting more aggressive and invasive phenotypes. For instance, exosomal miR-122 of some tumor types intervenes in glucose metabolism reprogramming by reducing its consumption in healthy cells surrounding the pre-metastatic niche, thereby favoring tumor development [52]. 3. Immunometabolites and Oncometabolites Immune cell function, activation, cytokine secretion and antitumor or antiviral effect depend on cellular metabolism [ 53 ]. Detailed knowledge of the metabolic pathways involved reveals functional differences between resting and activated immune cells, immune cells with homeostatic or altered functions, and permanent and transit TME immune cells. In general, CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL), CD4+ helper T lymphocytes (T h ), type M1 tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and natural killer cells play an antitumor role, while type M2 TAMs, mast cells, neutrophils and certain Tand B-lymphocyte subtypes promote cancer. However, these cells can be affected by metabolites (self-produced or immunometabolites), tumor cells or oncometabolites [ 54 ] as well as by TME conditions (Figure 1). TCAis lead to metabolic reprogramming, which determines the functional balance of immune cells. These products possess bioenergetic, biosynthetic, immune and oncogenic actions [ 8 ] and can regulate expression of inflammatory genes [ 55 ]. In general, succinate and citrate show pro-inflammatory properties, while fumarate, itaconate and α -KG are more related to immunosuppressive functions [ 8 ]. Many of these metabolites increase during immune activation, modulating the immune activation/suppression balance. Somatic mutations in cytosolic isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) can lead to production of oncometabolite 2-HG, although elevated levels of 2-HG have been observed in cytogenetically normal tumors [ 54 ]. In fact, less than half the elevated 2-HG cases had IDH1 mutations, while the remaining cases had mutations in IDH2, the mitochondrial homologue of IDH1. Succinate, 2-HG and fumarate promote cancer progression, also acquiring the ability to modulate cell signaling and affect chemotherapy and radiotherapy response through epigenetic mechanisms [56,57]. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), produced by cyclooxygenase-2 enzyme (COX-2), is involved in anti-inflammatory cytokine generation in cancer, promoting MDSC, regulatory T lymphocyte (T reg ) and M2 TAM accumulation. TME glucose availability is another key modulator in immune cell activation. Glucose is captured mainly by tumor cells to feed the exacerbated aerobic glycolysis (Warburg effect). This entails several phenomena, such as increased lactate production, TME acidosis and subsequent immune response regulation [ 58 ], an effect that also occurs in other, non-cancer-related inflammatory conditions [59]. Additionally, ROS produced by tumor cells participate in oxidative stress encountered by TME immune cells, while reduced blood flow in certain tumor areas results in hypoxia, which leads to HIF-1 α stabilization. The HIF-1 α pathway provides a metabolic switch through c-Myc or Ras oncogenes, and is therefore a critical transcriptional regulator of immunity and cancer inflammation. This metabolic reprogramming with increased glycolysis and coordinated TCA cycle rearrangement, together with reduced mitochondrial OXPHOS, enhances chronic tumor-related inflammation. Biomedicines 2021,9, 798 6 of 18 Biomedicines2021,9,xFORPEERREVIEW6of18   Figure1.Graphicalsummaryofthemetabolicregulationoftheimmuneresponseincancer.Theimagedepictsthecross‐ talkingbetweentumorcellsandimmunecellsbyalteringTMEcomposition.Dashedarrowsrepresentsecretionofmole‐ cules,solidarrowsindicatetheeffectofthemoleculesandboldarrowsshowimmunecelltypepolarizationdirection. Concentricgraycirclesrepresentglucoseandnutrientavailability(darkgray=low,lightgray=high)anddefinegroups ofrelatedmoleculesparticipatingsynergisticallyinspecificmetabolicregulationpathways(i.e.,lactate,lowO2andROS). TME:tumormicroenvironment.MDSC:myeloid‐derivedstemcells.CTL:cytotoxicTcells.Th:Thelpers.Treg:Tregula‐ torycells.M2:macrophagestype2.M1:macrophagestype1.DC:dendriticcells.FA:fattyacids.Arg:arginine.Trp:tryp‐ tophan.ROS:reactiveoxygenspecies.α‐KG:alpha‐ketoglutarate.LPS:lipopolysaccharide.IDO:indoleamine‐pyrrole2,3‐ dioxygenase.Arg1:arginase‐1.CreatedwithBioRender.com(accesseddate:13June2021). 3.1.MDSCFateandFunction MDSCsareheterogeneouspopulationsoftumor‐associatedinnateimmunosuppres‐ sivecells.InMDSCs,tryptophanisinvolvedintumorprogression.MDSCsthatsynthesize tryptophan‐degradingenzymeindoleamine2,3‐dioxygenase(IDO)arethoughttoprotect tumorsfromspecificT‐cellattackbyinducingtoleranceduringtheprimingphaseordi‐ rectlyintheTMEthroughtryptophancatabolism.Moreover,MDSCscandepleteamino Figure 1. Graphical summary of the metabolic regulation of the immune response in cancer. The image depicts the crosstalking between tumor cells and immune cells by altering TME composition. Dashed arrows represent secretion of molecules, solid arrows indicate the effect of the molecules and bold arrows show immune cell type polarization direction. Concentric gray circles represent glucose and nutrient availability (dark gray = low, light gray = high) and define groups of related molecules participating synergistically in specific metabolic regulation pathways (i.e., lactate, low O 2 and ROS). TME: tumor microenvironment. MDSC: myeloid-derived stem cells. CTL: cytotoxic T cells. Th: T helpers. Treg: T regulatory cells. M2: macrophages type 2. M1: macrophages type 1. DC: dendritic cells. FA: fatty acids. Arg: arginine. Trp: tryptophan. ROS: reactive oxygen species. α -KG: alpha-ketoglutarate. LPS: lipopolysaccharide. IDO: indoleamine-pyrrole 2,3-dioxygenase. Arg1: arginase-1. Created with BioRender.com (accessed date: 13 June 2021). 3.1. MDSC Fate and Function MDSCs are heterogeneous populations of tumor-associated innate immunosuppressive cells. In MDSCs, tryptophan is involved in tumor progression. MDSCs that synthesize tryptophan-degrading enzyme indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) are thought to pro- Biomedicines 2021,9, 798 7 of 18 tect tumors from specific T-cell attack by inducing tolerance during the priming phase or directly in the TME through tryptophan catabolism. Moreover, MDSCs can deplete amino acids by several mechanisms, and thus determine CTL fate, growth and immune functions in the TME, such as L-arginine metabolism by arginase-1 (Arg1) activity. Besides this, MDSC-generated arginine and tryptophan depletion also facilitates TAM and T reg immunosuppressive activity and hinders dendritic cell (DC) maturation. MDSCs also sense lipid metabolites produced by the TME, which particularly enhance MDSC immunosuppressive function. In fact, some studies have suggested that tumorassociated MDSCs reprogram their metabolic pathway to adapt to a particular TME, such as one with limited O2 and glucose but high FA levels, and thus prefer to use lipids or FAs as an alternative energy source [60,61]. Nonetheless, MDSCs tend to activate their metabolism and function through aerobic glycolysis and OXPHOS [ 62 ]. The polarization of metabolism towards glycolysis generates lactate, which stimulates generation of MDSCs and phosphoenolpyruvate, an antioxidant agent that prevents ROS overproduction, contributing to MDSC survival by protecting them from apoptosis. ROS not only activate anti-oxidative pathways but also induce transcriptional programs that regulate the fate and function of MDSCs. Furthermore, MDSCs release ROS molecules as part of a major mechanism to suppress T-cell responses and modulate TAM functions, whereas hypoxia contributes to the immunosuppressive phenotype of MDSC through a mechanism linked to HIF-1α[63]. 3.2. Complications of T-Cell Therapies Tumor glucose uptake limits nutritional resources and IFNγ expression in CTLs, reducing their functional response capacity [ 64 ], as also occurs in antitumor T h cells [ 65 ]. PD-L1 expression may contribute to this effect by driving Akt-mTOR activation and glycolysis in cancer cells [ 66 ]. Similarly, PD-1 and CTLA-4 expression in T cells suppress aerobic glycolysis, necessary for T-cell activation [ 67 , 68 ], while CD155 signaling reduces T-cell glucose uptake, lactate production and GLUT1 and HK2 expression. In addition, elevated potassium levels within the TME have been recognized to disrupt T-cell nutrient uptake, leading to a stemness state, further limiting the acquisition of T eff metabolism [ 69 ]. In contrast, the GITR costimulatory pathway increases T-cell proliferation and metabolic activity [70]. Among the accumulated glycolysis products generated by tumor cells, lactic acid impairs immune effector cells by directly inhibiting T-cell cytolytic functions. Likewise, high acidosis levels in a hypoxic TME result in mTOR signaling inhibition in T lymphocytes, producing energy in these cells [ 71 , 72 ] and promoting T reg activation [ 73 ]. Interestingly, T reg lymphocytes easily adapt to a lactic acid-enriched TME by CD36 upregulation [ 74 ], and are more resistant to oxidative stress-induced cell death than other T-lymphocyte subtypes [ 75 ], which would imply greater tumor tolerance in these TMEs. Taken together, these mechanisms induce T eff lymphocyte inhibition and encourage tumor growth-favoring T reg lymphocytes. A recent publication showed that hypoxia and glucose deprivation lead to decreased expression of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I molecules on tumor cells, facilitating their immune escape. Furthermore, tumor cells lose their sensitivity to IFNγ induction, mediated by increased MHC [ 76 ]. As a consequence, tumor cells evade death by IFN-γ-producing T cells, creating another obstacle to T-cell therapies. 3.3. Polarization of Macrophages Like T cells, macrophages also have a regulatory balance for their activation. The dual role of TAMs within the tumor, whether cytotoxic (pro-inflammatory, M1) or immunosuppressive (anti-inflammatory, M2), depends on the metabolic stimuli of the environment. In general, M1 metabolism usually resembles that of tumor cells, with a Warburg effect and aerobic glycolysis, while M2 metabolism tends to be based on FAO, although this might be overly simplistic [ 77 , 78 ]. Succinate, itaconate, fumarate and α -KG levels in macrophages and other immune cells have a profound impact on TAM polarization and Biomedicines 2021,9, 798 8 of 18 innate immune memory [ 5 , 79 ]. Macrophage lipopolysaccharide (LPS) stimulation induces M1 macrophages, while stimulation with interleukin (IL)-4 induces M2 macrophages. TCA reprogramming in LPS-treated macrophages induces the Irg1 gene and causes succinate and itaconate accumulation [ 80 ]. These two immunometabolites form an essential immunomodulatory system [ 81 ], succinate having an important role in inflammatory signaling [ 82 ] by IL-1 β , hypoxia by HIF-1 α and metabolism through ROS, while itaconate shows an anti-inflammatory role [ 9 ], inhibiting succinate dehydrogenase [ 83 ] and mediating antioxidant/anti-inflammatory pathway Nrf2 activation and modulation of IFN type I [84]. Regulation of mitochondrial respiration and FAO of TAMs are determined by their metabolic programming [ 85 ]. In TAMs, FA synthesis is considered pro-tumorigenic, unlike Teff, Treg and T memory cells which oxidize FA for fuel. M2 macrophages metabolize amino acids expressing high levels of Arg1, which depletes arginine and generates highly immunosuppressive polyamines [ 86 ]. Lactic acid produced by tumor cells acts as a signaler through HIF-1 α and induces VEGF expression and particularly Arg1 production and M2 polarization [ 87 ]. Upregulated Arg1 in M2 TAMs also leads to immunosuppression in T cells. Mitochondrial localization of Arg2 is a central regulator of oxidative phosphorylation and macrophage polarization towards the M1 phenotype, a process controlled by miR-155 and IL-10. Arg2 increases complex II (succinate dehydrogenase) activity and downregulates succinate inflammatory mediators such as IL-10, HIF-1αand IL-1β[88]. Other mechanisms of IL-4-induced M2 TAMs regulation require the glutaminolysismediated production of α -KG, a cofactor of the epigenetic enzyme Jmjd3, which promotes IL-4 response in macrophages and inhibits pro-inflammatory signals [ 89 ]; this establishes a new system to balance macrophage function through the succinate/ α -KG ratio. Finally, ATP citrate lyase (ACLY) of TCA cycle metabolite acetyl-CoA supports the anti-inflammatory responses of macrophages by promoting histone acetylation and IL-4induced gene transcription [ 90 ]. ACLY is one of the main enzymes that catalyze acetyl-CoA formation; its functions include acetyl-CoA provision for lipogenesis, epigenetic regulation through histone acetylation and mediation of innate and adaptive immune responses [ 91 ]. Adenosine is a metabolite generated as a result of hypoxia inside the tumor [ 92 ] which promotes alternative macrophage activation towards M2 accumulation and expression of checkpoint inhibitors with immunosuppressive results. Furthermore, this hypoxic environment contributes to angiogenesis factor and cytosine production, also favoring accumulation of immunosuppressive M2 TAMs [93,94]. 3.4. Dendritic Cell Subsets in Immune Response Regulation Like macrophages, DCs undergo intense metabolic reprogramming in response to hypoxia, nutrient availability, growth factors, cytokines and other environmental signals. These include immunometabolites such as succinate and citrate [ 95 ], which regulate immunogenic/tolerogenic levels of DC. Moreover, IDO activation in DC has been shown to be involved in tumor immune evasion. Similarly, lactate produced through glycolysis can reduce DC activation and antigen presentation, facilitating tumor cell escape from immune attack [96,97]. 4. Therapeutic Applications of Immunometabolism Regulation In cancer, metabolites have an especially significant effect on immune cells, hence cancer immunotherapy aims to act at the metabolic level (Figure ?? ). For example, PGE2’s effect can be countered by COX-2 inhibitors such as acetylsalicylic acid or celecoxib, as established in colorectal cancer, mainly in the context of chemoprevention strategies; clinical research in this field is, however, still ongoing. Regarding 2-HG oncometabolite production, glutamine and glutamate pathways can be inhibited, providing alternative potential targets. Furthermore, the exceptional glucose metabolism of cancer cells (Warburg effect) implies TME acidification and lower glucose availability. These events seem key Biomedicines 2021,9, 798 9 of 18 in explaining the wide range of immunosuppressive effects associated with cancer cellinduced biochemical reactions. Thus, regarding the metabolic switch to glycolysis mediated by metformin, dependent suppression of the mitochondrial complex followed by glucose deprivation could be used in combination with different chemotherapy schedules or immune checkpoint inhibitors as new cancer therapy approaches. Biomedicines2021,9,xFORPEERREVIEW9of18  explainingthewiderangeofimmunosuppressiveeffectsassociatedwithcancercell‐in‐ ducedbiochemicalreactions.Thus,regardingthemetabolicswitchtoglycolysismediated bymetformin,dependentsuppressionofthemitochondrialcomplexfollowedbyglucose deprivationcouldbeusedincombinationwithdifferentchemotherapyschedulesorim‐ munecheckpointinhibitorsasnewcancertherapyapproaches. Immunometabolismthereforerepresentsanemergingnewtargetforcancerimmu‐ notherapy,andnewlinesofresearcharefocusedondirectlyorindirectlyregulatingdif‐ ferentmetabolitestoimprovecurrentimmunotherapeuticapproaches(Table1).  Figure2.Schematicrepresentationofpro‐inflammatory(antitumor)immunometabolicandcellular profile.Immunesystemprogrammingbeginsattheperinatalstage,maturesthroughenvironmental stimulationandisregulatedbyabalancednetworkthatincludesgeneticandepigeneticprofile, microbiota,hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal(H–P–A)axis,sleep,dietandmanyotherelements. Withinthisnetwork,metabolismamplifiesorinhibitsimmunefunction,determiningphysiological, adaptiveoralteredresponsesby(a)microenvironmentalconditions,suchaspH,oxygenation,etc.; (b)intercellularcommunicationwithchemokines,lactate,PGE2,etc.;and(c)TCAis,suchassuccin‐ ate,α‐KGandothers.Thefigureshownrepresentsdifferentfrequency(inhibition/activation)bands, withanequilibriumpositioninthecenter,decreasedactivitytowardstheleft(red),andincreased towardstheright(green).Likeanequalizationsystem,thisnetworkselectstheimmune“frequency band”determinedbyfine‐tuningtheelementsmakinguptheexpandedsystem.Thisdetermines Figure 2. Schematic representation of pro-inflammatory (antitumor) immunometabolic and cellular profile. Immune system programming begins at the perinatal stage, matures through environmental stimulation and is regulated by a balanced network that includes genetic and epigenetic profile, microbiota, hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (H–P–A) axis, sleep, diet and many other elements. Within this network, metabolism amplifies or inhibits immune function, determining physiological, adaptive or altered responses by ( a ) microenvironmental conditions, such as pH, oxygenation, etc.; ( b ) intercellular communication with chemokines, lactate, PGE2, etc.; and ( c ) TCAis, such as succinate, α -KG and others. The figure shown represents different frequency (inhibition/activation) bands, with an equilibrium position in the center, decreased activity towards the left (red), and increased towards the right (green). Like an equalization system, this network selects the immune “frequency band” determined by fine-tuning the elements making up the expanded system. This determines the immune response pattern, defined by cell subpopulations ( d ), their functionality, cytokine secretion and intercellular communication relationships within the TME. This schema introduces a concept that must be investigated and determined separately for each type of immune response, depending on specific physiological or pathophysiological Biomedicines 2021,9, 798 16 of 18 56. Xiang, K.; Jendrossek, V.; Matschke, J. Oncometabolites and the response to radiotherapy. Radiat. Oncol. 2020 ,15, 1–10. [CrossRef] 57. Weng, C.Y.; Kao, C.X.; Chang, T.S.; Huang, Y.H. Immuno-metabolism: The role of cancer niche in immune checkpoint inhibitor resistance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021,22, 1258. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 58. Certo, M.; Tsai, C.H.; Pucino, V.; Ho, P.C.; Mauro, C. Lactate modulation of immune responses in inflammatory versus tumour microenvironments. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2021,21, 151–161. [CrossRef] 59. Kiran, D.; Basaraba, R.J. Lactate Metabolism and Signaling in Tuberculosis and Cancer: A Comparative Review. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2021,11, 37. [CrossRef] 60. Davidov, V.; Jensen, G.; Mai, S.; Chen, S.H.; Pan, P.Y. Analyzing One Cell at a TIME: Analysis of Myeloid Cell Contributions in the Tumor Immune Microenvironment. Front. Immunol. 2020,11, 1842. [CrossRef] 61. Yan, D.; Adeshakin, A.O.; Xu, M.; Afolabi, L.O.; Zhang, G.; Chen, Y.H.; Wan, X. Lipid metabolic pathways confer the immunosuppressive function of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in tumor. Front. Immunol. 2019,10, 1399. [CrossRef] 62. Hossain, F.; Al-Khami, A.A.; Wyczechowska, D.; Hernandez, C.; Zheng, L.; Reiss, K.; Del Valle, L.; Trillo-Tinoco, J.; Maj, T.; Zou, W.; et al. Inhibition of Fatty Acid Oxidation Modulates Immunosuppressive Functions of Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells and Enhances Cancer Therapies. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2015,3, 1236–1247. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 63. Corzo, C.A.; Condamine, T.; Lu, L.; Cotter, M.J.; Youn, J.I.; Cheng, P.; Cho, H.I.; Celis, E.; Quiceno, D.G.; Padhya, T.; et al. HIF-1 α regulates function and differentiation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in the tumor microenvironment. J. Exp. Med. 2010 ,207, 2439–2453. [CrossRef] 64. Ma, E.H.; Verway, M.J.; Johnson, R.M.; Roy, D.G.; Steadman, M.; Hayes, S.; Williams, K.S.; Sheldon, R.D.; Samborska, B.; Kosinski, P.A.; et al. Metabolic Profiling Using Stable Isotope Tracing Reveals Distinct Patterns of Glucose Utilization by Physiologically Activated CD8+ T Cells. Immunity 2019,51, 856–870. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 65. Ho, P.C.; Bihuniak, J.D.; MacIntyre, A.N.; Staron, M.; Liu, X.; Amezquita, R.; Tsui, Y.C.; Cui, G.; Micevic, G.; Perales, J.C.; et al. Phosphoenolpyruvate Is a Metabolic Checkpoint of Anti-tumor T Cell Responses. Cell 2015,162, 1217–1228. [CrossRef] 66. Chang, C.H.; Qiu, J.; O’Sullivan, D.; Buck, M.D.; Noguchi, T.; Curtis, J.D.; Chen, Q.; Gindin, M.; Gubin, M.M.; Van Der Windt, G.J.W.; et al. Metabolic Competition in the Tumor Microenvironment Is a Driver of Cancer Progression. Cell 2015 ,162, 1229–1241. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 67. Parry, R.V.; Chemnitz, J.M.; Frauwirth, K.A.; Lanfranco, A.R.; Braunstein, I.; Kobayashi, S.V.; Linsley, P.S.; Thompson, C.B.; Riley, J.L. CTLA-4 and PD-1 Receptors Inhibit T-Cell Activation by Distinct Mechanisms. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2005 ,25, 9543–9553. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 68. Ogando, J.; Sáez, M.E.; Santos, J.; Nuevo-Tapioles, C.; Gut, M.; Esteve-Codina, A.; Heath, S.; González-Pérez, A.; Cuezva, J.M.; Lacalle, R.A.; et al. PD-1 signaling affects cristae morphology and leads to mitochondrial dysfunction in human CD8+ T lymphocytes. J. Immunother. Cancer 2019,7, 151. [CrossRef] 69. Kumar Vodnala, S.; Eil, R.; Kishton, R.J.; Sukumar, M.; Yamamoto, T.N.; Ha, N.-H.; Lee, P.-H.; Shin, M.; Patel, S.J.; Yu, Z.; et al. T cell stemness and dysfunction in tumors are triggered by a common mechanism. Science 2019,363, 6434. [CrossRef] 70. Sabharwal, S.S.; Rosen, D.B.; Grein, J.; Tedesco, D.; Joyce-Shaikh, B.; Ueda, R.; Semana, M.; Bauer, M.; Bang, K.; Stevenson, C.; et al. GITR agonism enhances cellular metabolism to support CD8+ T-cell proliferation and effector cytokine production in a mouse tumor model. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2018,6, 1199–1211. [CrossRef] 71. Walton, Z.E.; Patel, C.H.; Brooks, R.C.; Yu, Y.; Ibrahim-Hashim, A.; Riddle, M.; Porcu, A.; Jiang, T.; Ecker, B.L.; Tameire, F.; et al. Acid Suspends the Circadian Clock in Hypoxia through Inhibition of mTOR. Cell 2018,174, 72–87. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 72. Zheng, Y.; Delgoffe, G.M.; Meyer, C.F.; Chan, W.; Powell, J.D. Anergic T Cells Are Metabolically Anergic. J. Immunol. 2009 ,183, 6095–6101. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 73. Battaglia, M.; Stabilini, A.; Roncarolo, M.G. Rapamycin selectively expands CD4+CD25+FoxP3 + regulatory T cells. Blood 2005 , 105, 4743–4748. [CrossRef] 74. Wang, H.; Franco, F.; Tsui, Y.-C.; Xie, X.; Trefny, M.P.; Zappasodi, R.; Mohmood, S.R.; Fernández-García, J.; Tsai, C.-H.; Schulze, I.; et al. CD36-mediated metabolic adaptation supports regulatory T cell survival and function in tumors. Nat. Immunol. 2020 ,21, 298–308. [CrossRef] 75. Mougiakakos, D.; Johansson, C.C.; Kiessling, R. Naturally occurring regulatory T cells show reduced sensitivity toward oxidative stress-induced cell death. Blood 2009,113, 3542–3545. [CrossRef] 76. Marijt, K.A.; Sluijter, M.; Blijleven, L.; Tolmeijer, S.H.; Scheeren, F.A.; Van Der Burg, S.H.; Van Hall, T. Metabolic stress in cancer cells induces immune escape through a PI3K-dependent blockade of IFN γ receptor signaling. J. Immunother. Cancer 2019 ,7. [CrossRef] 77. Van den Bossche, J.; O’Neill, L.A.; Menon, D. Macrophage Immunometabolism: Where Are We (Going)? Trends Immunol. 2017 ,38, 395–406. [CrossRef] 78. Batista-Gonzalez, A.; Vidal, R.; Criollo, A.; Carreño, L.J. New Insights on the Role of Lipid Metabolism in the Metabolic Reprogramming of Macrophages. Front. Immunol. 2020,10, 2993. [CrossRef] 79. Ryan, D.G.; O’Neill, L.A.J. Krebs Cycle Reborn in Macrophage Immunometabolism. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2020 ,38, 289–313. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 80. O’Neill, L.A.J.; Artyomov, M.N. Itaconate: The poster child of metabolic reprogramming in macrophage function. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2019,19, 273–281. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Biomedicines 2021,9, 798 17 of 18 81. Hooftman, A.; O’Neill, L.A.J. The Immunomodulatory Potential of the Metabolite Itaconate. Trends Immunol. 2019 ,40, 687–698. [CrossRef] 82. Tannahill, G.M.; Curtis, A.M.; Adamik, J.; Palsson-Mcdermott, E.M.; McGettrick, A.F.; Goel, G.; Frezza, C.; Bernard, N.J.; Kelly, B.; Foley, N.H.; et al. Succinate is an inflammatory signal that induces IL-1 β through HIF-1 α .Nature 2013 ,496, 238–242. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 83. Lampropoulou, V.; Sergushichev, A.; Bambouskova, M.; Nair, S.; Vincent, E.E.; Loginicheva, E.; Cervantes-Barragan, L.; Ma, X.; Huang, S.C.C.; Griss, T.; et al. Itaconate Links Inhibition of Succinate Dehydrogenase with Macrophage Metabolic Remodeling and Regulation of Inflammation. Cell Metab. 2016,24, 158–166. [CrossRef] 84. Mills, E.L.; Ryan, D.G.; Prag, H.A.; Dikovskaya, D.; Menon, D.; Zaslona, Z.; Jedrychowski, M.P.; Costa, A.S.H.; Higgins, M.; Hams, E.; et al. Itaconate is an anti-inflammatory metabolite that activates Nrf2 via alkylation of KEAP1. Nature 2018 ,556, 113–117. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 85. Jha, A.K.; Huang, S.C.C.; Sergushichev, A.; Lampropoulou, V.; Ivanova, Y.; Loginicheva, E.; Chmielewski, K.; Stewart, K.M.; Ashall, J.; Everts, B.; et al. Network integration of parallel metabolic and transcriptional data reveals metabolic modules that regulate macrophage polarization. Immunity 2015,42, 419–430. [CrossRef] 86. Hayes, C.S.; Shicora, A.C.; Keough, M.P.; Snook, A.E.; Burns, M.R.; Gilmour, S.K. Polyamine-blocking therapy reverses immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2014,2, 274–285. [CrossRef] 87. Colegio, O.R.; Chu, N.Q.; Szabo, A.L.; Chu, T.; Rhebergen, A.M.; Jairam, V.; Cyrus, N.; Brokowski, C.E.; Eisenbarth, S.C.; Phillips, G.M.; et al. Functional polarization of tumour-associated macrophages by tumour-derived lactic acid. Nature 2014 ,513, 559–563. [CrossRef] 88. Dowling, J.K.; Afzal, R.; Gearing, L.J.; Cervantes-Silva, M.P.; Annett, S.; Davis, G.M.; De Santi, C.; Assmann, N.; Dettmer, K.; Gough, D.J.; et al. Mitochondrial arginase-2 is essential for IL-10 metabolic reprogramming of inflammatory macrophages. Nat. Commun. 2021,12, 1–14. [CrossRef] 89. Liu, P.S.; Wang, H.; Li, X.; Chao, T.; Teav, T.; Christen, S.; DI Conza, G.; Cheng, W.C.; Chou, C.H.; Vavakova, M.; et al. α - ketoglutarate orchestrates macrophage activation through metabolic and epigenetic reprogramming. Nat. Immunol. 2017 ,18, 985–994. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 90. Covarrubias, A.J.; Aksoylar, H.I.; Yu, J.; Snyder, N.W.; Worth, A.J.; Iyer, S.S.; Wang, J.; Ben-Sahra, I.; Byles, V.; Polynne-Stapornkul, T.; et al. Akt-mTORC1 signaling regulates Acly to integrate metabolic input to control of macrophage activation. Elife 2016 ,5, e11612. [CrossRef] 91. Dominguez, M.; Brüne, B.; Namgaladze, D. Exploring the Role of ATP-Citrate Lyase in the Immune System. Front. Immunol. 2021 , 12, 14. [CrossRef] 92. Csóka, B.; Selmeczy, Z.; Koscsó, B.; Németh, Z.H.; Pacher, P.; Murray, P.J.; Kepka-Lenhart, D.; Morris, S.M., Jr.; Gause, W.C.; Leibovich, S.J.; et al. Adenosine promotes alternative macrophage activation via A2A and A2B receptors. FASEB J. 2012 ,26, 376–386. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 93. Henze, A.T.; Mazzone, M. The impact of hypoxia on tumor-associated macrophages. J. Clin. Investig. 2016 ,126, 3672–3679. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 94. Tripathi, C.; Tewari, B.N.; Kanchan, R.K.; Baghel, K.S.; Nautiyal, N.; Shrivastava, R.; Kaur, H.; Bramha Bhatt, M.L.; Bhadauria, S. Macrophages are recruited to hypoxic tumor areas and acquire a Pro-Angiogenic M2-Polarized phenotype via hypoxic cancer cell derived cytokines Oncostatin M and Eotaxin. Oncotarget 2014,5, 5350–5368. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 95. O’Neill, L.A.J.; Pearce, E.J. Immunometabolism governs dendritic cell and macrophage function. J. Exp. Med. 2016 ,213, 15–23. [CrossRef] 96. Nasi, A.; Fekete, T.; Krishnamurthy, A.; Snowden, S.; Rajnavölgyi, E.; Catrina, A.I.; Wheelock, C.E.; Vivar, N.; Rethi, B. Dendritic Cell Reprogramming by Endogenously Produced Lactic Acid. J. Immunol. 2013,191, 3090–3099. [CrossRef] 97. Gottfried, E.; Kunz-Schughart, L.A.; Ebner, S.; Mueller-Klieser, W.; Hoves, S.; Andreesen, R.; Mackensen, A.; Kreutz, M. Tumor-derived lactic acid modulates dendritic cell activation and antigen expression. Blood 2006,107, 2013–2021. [CrossRef] 98. Roma-Rodrigues, C.; Mendes, R.; Baptista, P.V.; Fernandes, A.R. Targeting tumor microenvironment for cancer therapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019,20, 840. [CrossRef] 99. Chen, Y.S.; Lin, E.Y.; Chiou, T.W.; Harn, H.J. Exosomes in clinical trial and their production in compliance with good manufacturing practice. Tzu Chi Med. J. 2020,32, 113–120. 100. Rosato, P.C.; Wijeyesinghe, S.; Stolley, J.M.; Nelson, C.E.; Davis, R.L.; Manlove, L.S.; Pennell, C.A.; Blazar, B.R.; Chen, C.C.; Geller, M.A.; et al. Virus-specific memory T cells populate tumors and can be repurposed for tumor immunotherapy. Nat. Commun. 2019,10, 1–9. [CrossRef] 101. Farrell, P.J. Epstein-Barr Virus and Cancer. Annu. Rev. Pathol. Mech. Dis. 2019,14, 29–53. [CrossRef] 102. Zhang, Y.X.; Zhao, Y.Y.; Shen, J.; Sun, X.; Liu, Y.; Liu, H.; Wang, Y.; Wang, J. Nanoenabled Modulation of Acidic Tumor Microenvironment Reverses Anergy of Infiltrating T Cells and Potentiates Anti-PD-1 Therapy. Nano Lett. 2019 ,19, 2774–2783. [CrossRef] 103. Daneshmandi, S.; Wegiel, B.; Seth, P. Blockade of lactate dehydrogenase-A (LDH-A) improves efficacy of anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) therapy in melanoma. Cancers 2019,11, 450. [CrossRef] 104. Seth, P.; Csizmadia, E.; Hedblom, A.; Vuerich, M.; Xie, H.; Li, M.; Longhi, M.S.; Wegiel, B. Deletion of lactate dehydrogenase-A in myeloid cells triggers antitumor immunity. Cancer Res. 2017,77, 3632–3643. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Biomedicines 2021,9, 798 18 of 18 105. Schaer, D.A.; Geeganage, S.; Amaladas, N.; Lu, Z.H.; Rasmussen, E.R.; Sonyi, A.; Chin, D.; Capen, A.; Li, Y.; Meyer, C.M.; et al. The folate pathway inhibitor pemetrexed pleiotropically enhances effects of cancer immunotherapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019 ,25, 7175–7188. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 106. Xu, T.; Stewart, K.M.; Wang, X.; Liu, K.; Xie, M.; Kyu Ryu, J.; Li, K.; Ma, T.; Wang, H.; Ni, L.; et al. Metabolic control of TH17 and induced Treg cell balance by an epigenetic mechanism. Nature 2017,548, 228–233. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 107. Qiu, J.; Villa, M.; Sanin, D.E.; Buck, M.D.; O’Sullivan, D.; Ching, R.; Matsushita, M.; Grzes, K.M.; Winkler, F.; Chang, C.H.; et al. Acetate Promotes T Cell Effector Function during Glucose Restriction. Cell Rep. 2019,27, 2063–2074. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 108. Kilgour, M.K.; MacPherson, S.; Zacharias, L.G.; Ellis, A.E.; Sheldon, R.D.; Liu, E.Y.; Keyes, S.; Pauly, B.; Carleton, G.; Allard, B.; et al. 1-Methylnicotinamide is an immune regulatory metabolite in human ovarian cancer. Sci. Adv. 2021 ,7, eabe1174. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 109. Ligtenberg, M.A.; Mougiakakos, D.; Mukhopadhyay, M.; Witt, K.; Lladser, A.; Chmielewski, M.; Riet, T.; Abken, H.; Kiessling, R. Coexpressed Catalase Protects Chimeric Antigen Receptor–Redirected T Cells as well as Bystander Cells from Oxidative Stress–Induced Loss of Antitumor Activity. J. Immunol. 2016,196, 759–766. [CrossRef] 110. Jian, S.L.; Chen, W.W.; Su, Y.C.; Su, Y.W.; Chuang, T.H.; Hsu, S.C.; Huang, L.R. Glycolysis regulates the expansion of myeloidderived suppressor cells in tumor-bearing hosts through prevention of ROS-mediated apoptosis. Cell Death Dis. 2017 ,8. [CrossRef] 111. Aricò, E.; Castiello, L.; Capone, I.; Gabriele, L.; Belardelli, F. Type i interferons and cancer: An evolving story demanding novel clinical applications. Cancers 2019,11, 1943. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 112. Yu, X.H.; Zhang, D.W.; Zheng, X.L.; Tang, C.K. Itaconate: An emerging determinant of inflammation in activated macrophages. Immunol. Cell Biol. 2019,97, 134–141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]