Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Physician-Scientist Development
    • Reviews
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Resource and Technical Advances
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Editorials
  • Perspectives
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Reviews
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Pivotal roles for cancer cell–intrinsic mPGES-1 and autocrine EP4 signaling in suppressing antitumor immunity
Nune Markosyan, Il-Kyu Kim, Charu Arora, Liz Quinones-Ware, Nikhil Joshi, Noah Cheng, Emma Y. Schechter, John W. Tobias, Joseph E. Hochberg, Emily Corse, Kang Liu, Varenka Rodriguez DiBlasi, Li-Chuan (Eric) Chan, Emer M. Smyth, Garret A. FitzGerald, Ben Z. Stanger, Robert H. Vonderheide
Nune Markosyan, Il-Kyu Kim, Charu Arora, Liz Quinones-Ware, Nikhil Joshi, Noah Cheng, Emma Y. Schechter, John W. Tobias, Joseph E. Hochberg, Emily Corse, Kang Liu, Varenka Rodriguez DiBlasi, Li-Chuan (Eric) Chan, Emer M. Smyth, Garret A. FitzGerald, Ben Z. Stanger, Robert H. Vonderheide
View: Text | PDF
Research Article Immunology Oncology

Pivotal roles for cancer cell–intrinsic mPGES-1 and autocrine EP4 signaling in suppressing antitumor immunity

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Tumor cell–derived prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) is a tumor cell–intrinsic factor that supports immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment (TME) by acting on the immune cells, but the impact of PGE2 signaling in tumor cells on the immunosuppressive TME is unclear. We demonstrate that deleting the PGE2 synthesis enzyme or disrupting autocrine PGE2 signaling through EP4 receptors on tumor cells reverses the T cell–low, myeloid cell–rich TME, activates T cells, and suppresses tumor growth. Knockout (KO) of Ptges (the gene encoding the PGE2 synthesis enzyme mPGES-1) or the EP4 receptor gene (Ptger4) in KPCY (KrasG12D P53R172H Yfp CrePdx) pancreatic tumor cells abolished growth of implanted tumors in a T cell–dependent manner. Blockade of the EP4 receptor in combination with immunotherapy, but not immunotherapy alone, induced complete tumor regressions and immunological memory. Mechanistically, Ptges- and Ptger4-KO tumor cells exhibited altered T and myeloid cell attractant chemokines, became more susceptible to TNF-α–induced killing, and exhibited reduced adenosine synthesis. In hosts treated with an adenosine deaminase inhibitor, Ptger4-KO tumor cells accumulated adenosine and gave rise to tumors. These studies reveal an unexpected finding — a nonredundant role for the autocrine mPGES-1/PGE2/EP4 signaling axis in pancreatic cancer cells, further nominating mPGES-1 inhibition and EP4 blockade as immune-sensitizing therapy in cancer.

Authors

Nune Markosyan, Il-Kyu Kim, Charu Arora, Liz Quinones-Ware, Nikhil Joshi, Noah Cheng, Emma Y. Schechter, John W. Tobias, Joseph E. Hochberg, Emily Corse, Kang Liu, Varenka Rodriguez DiBlasi, Li-Chuan (Eric) Chan, Emer M. Smyth, Garret A. FitzGerald, Ben Z. Stanger, Robert H. Vonderheide

×

Figure 1

Ptges deficiency suppresses tumor growth in a T cell–dependent manner.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint

Ptges deficiency suppresses tumor growth in a T cell–dependent manner.
...
(A) Ptges mRNA expression by Q-PCR in parental (non-transduced 6419c5), control (empty vector transduced [EV]), and Ptges-KO clonal tumor cell lines A12 and D6 (n = 3–4). (B) Extracellular PGE2 levels measured by ELISA in parental, EV, and Ptges-KO clones (n = 5). (C) EV and Ptges-KO clonal cell line growth in vitro (n = 2). (D) Subcutaneously (s.c.) implanted EV and Ptges-KO D6 clone growth in vivo (left, n = 10/group) and host survival (right, n = 7–13). One out of 3 experiments with similar results shown. (E) Orthotopically injected EV and Ptges-KO D6 tumors harvested, photographed, and weighed on day 18 after transplantation (n = 6). (F) Control TetR EV and TetR Ptges KDc6 tumor growth in vivo (left) and host survival (right) with and without anti–PD-1 (αPD-1) treatment (n = 8–10). (G) Flow cytometric analysis of s.c. implanted EV and Ptges-KO D6 tumors on day 7 after implantation (n = 4–5; 1 of 3 experiments with similar results shown). (H) Proportions of M1 (F4/80+CD206–MHCIIhi) and M2 (F4/80+CD206+MHCIImed) macrophages as a percentage of total macrophages in s.c. implanted EV and Ptges-KO D6 tumors (flow cytometry, day 7 after implantation, n = 4; 1 of 2 experiments with similar results shown). (I) Growth curves of EV and Ptges-KO D6 s.c. implanted tumors in hosts receiving CD4+ and CD8+ cell–depleting or isotype control antibodies (n = 5). (J) Growth curves of EV tumor cells implanted s.c. into naive hosts receiving isotype control antibodies and hosts that had previously cleared the Ptges-KO D6 tumors receiving either CD4+ and CD8+ T cell–depleting or isotype control antibodies (n = 5–8). Data are presented as mean ± SEM (A, B, D [left], F [left], I, and J), mean (C), or median (E and G). Significance was assessed by ordinary 1-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple-comparison test (A and B), 2-way ANOVA with main-effects analysis and Tukey’s multiple-comparison test (C), 2-way ANOVA with mix-effects analysis (D, left and F, left), log-rank Mantel-Cox test (D, right), 2-tailed unpaired Student’s t test (E and G), or 2-way ANOVA with mixed-effects analysis and Tukey’s multiple-comparison test (I and J). For all figures, P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; ****P < 0.0001.

Copyright © 2026 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts