Defining and targeting tumor-associated macrophages in malignant mesothelioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defining the ontogeny of tumor-associated macrophages (TAM) is important to develop therapeutic targets for mesothelioma. We identified two distinct macrophage populations in mouse peritoneal and pleural cavities, the monocyte-derived, small peritoneal/pleural macrophages (SPM), and the tissue-resident large peritoneal/pleural macrophages (LPM). SPM rapidly increased in tumor microenvironment after tumor challenge and contributed to the vast majority of M2-like TAM. The selective depletion of M2-like TAM by conditional deletion of the Dicer1 gene in myeloid cells (D −/− ) promoted tumor rejection. Sorted SPM M2-like TAM initiated tumorigenesis in vivo and in vitro, confirming their capacity to support tumor development. The transcriptomic and single-cell RNA sequencing analysis demonstrated that both SPM and LPM contributed to the tumor microenvironment by promoting the IL-2-STAT5 signaling pathway, inflammation, and epithelial–mesenchymal transition. However, while SPM preferentially activated the KRAS and TNF-α/NFkB signaling pathways, LPM activated the IFN-γ response. The importance of LPM in the immune response was confirmed by depleting LPM with intrapleural clodronate liposomes, which abrogated the antitumoral memory immunity. SPM gene signature could be identified in pleural effusion and tumor from patients with untreated mesothelioma. Five genes, TREM2, STAB1, LAIR1, GPNMB , and MARCO , could potentially be specific therapeutic targets. Accordingly, Trem2 gene deletion led to reduced SPM M2-like TAM with compensatory increase in LPM and slower tumor growth. Overall, these experiments demonstrate that SPM M2-like TAM play a key role in mesothelioma development, while LPM more specifically contribute to the immune response. Therefore, selective targeting of monocyte-derived TAM may enhance antitumor immunity through compensatory expansion of tissue-resident TAM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".