Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Mar;8(1):e000337.
doi: 10.1136/jitc-2019-000337.

Consensus guidelines for the definition, detection and interpretation of immunogenic cell death

Lorenzo Galluzzi #  1   2   3   4   5 Ilio Vitale #  6   7 Sarah Warren #  8 Sandy Adjemian  9   10 Patrizia Agostinis  11   12 Aitziber Buqué Martinez  13 Timothy A Chan  14   15 George Coukos  16 Sandra Demaria  13   2   17 Eric Deutsch  18   19   20 Dobrin Draganov  21 Richard L Edelson  4   22 Silvia C Formenti  13   2 Jitka Fucikova  23   24 Lucia Gabriele  25 Udo S Gaipl  26 Sofia R Gameiro  27 Abhishek D Garg  11 Encouse Golden  13   2 Jian Han  28 Kevin J Harrington  29   30 Akseli Hemminki  31   32 James W Hodge  27 Dewan Md Sakib Hossain  33 Tim Illidge  34 Michael Karin  35 Howard L Kaufman  36   37 Oliver Kepp  38   39 Guido Kroemer  5   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45 Juan Jose Lasarte  46 Sherene Loi  47   48 Michael T Lotze  49   50   51 Gwenola Manic  6   7 Taha Merghoub  52   53   54 Alan A Melcher  55 Karen L Mossman  56 Felipe Prosper  57 Øystein Rekdal  58   59 Maria Rescigno  60   61 Chiara Riganti  62   63 Antonella Sistigu  64   65 Mark J Smyth  66 Radek Spisek  23   24 John Stagg  67   68   69 Bryan E Strauss  70 Daolin Tang  71 Kazuki Tatsuno  4 Stefaan W van Gool  72 Peter Vandenabeele  9   10   73 Takahiro Yamazaki  13 Dmitriy Zamarin  74   75 Laurence Zitvogel  40   76   77   78   79 Alessandra Cesano  80 Francesco M Marincola  81
Affiliations
Review

Consensus guidelines for the definition, detection and interpretation of immunogenic cell death

Lorenzo Galluzzi et al. J Immunother Cancer. 2020 Mar.

Erratum in

Abstract

Cells succumbing to stress via regulated cell death (RCD) can initiate an adaptive immune response associated with immunological memory, provided they display sufficient antigenicity and adjuvanticity. Moreover, multiple intracellular and microenvironmental features determine the propensity of RCD to drive adaptive immunity. Here, we provide an updated operational definition of immunogenic cell death (ICD), discuss the key factors that dictate the ability of dying cells to drive an adaptive immune response, summarize experimental assays that are currently available for the assessment of ICD in vitro and in vivo, and formulate guidelines for their interpretation.

Keywords: immunology; molecular biology; oncology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Major factors dictating the immunogenicity of cell death. Cells undergoing regulated cell death (RCD) in response to stress can prime an adaptive immune response specific for dead cell-associated antigens provided that (1) those antigens are not perfectly covered by central tolerance, and (2) dying cells emit a panel of immunostimulatory damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) and cytokines that, when delivered according to a precise spatiotemporal pattern, support the recruitment, phagocytic activity and maturation of antigen-presenting cells (APCs), de facto enabling them to engulf antigenic material, migrate to lymph nodes and prime a cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL)-dependent immune response. As they express tumor neoantigens (TNAs, which are not covered by central tolerance) and/or tumor-associated antigens (TAAs, for which central tolerance is leaky), cancer cells can undergo bona fide immunogenic cell death (ICD) in response to select stimuli, including (but not limited to) some chemotherapeutic agents commonly employed in the clinic, as well as radiation therapy. However, the TME is generally characterized by an immunosuppressive profile that may prevent either the initiation or the execution of ICD-driven anticancer immunity. Thus, the ultimate ability of RCD to drive adaptive immunity does not depend only on the initiating stimulus and the dying cell, but also on features that are intrinsic to the host. IFNAR, interferon-alpha/beta receptor; PRR, pattern recognition receptor; TREG, regulatory T; TME, tumor microenvironment.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Current methods to assess ICD in vivo, in oncological settings. Current models to ascertain the ability of dying cancer cells to elicit an adaptive, tumor-specific immune response in vivo invariably rely on mouse neoplasms established in immunocompetent syngeneic hosts. In prophylactic models, mouse cancer cells succumbing in vitro to a potential inducer of immunogenic celldeath (ICD) are used as a vaccine, either as such, or on loading on immature, syngeneic dendritic cells (DCs). The ability of mice to reject (tumor incidence) or control (tumor growth) a rechallenge with living cancer cells of the same type inoculated 1–2 weeks later is monitored as a sign of protective anticancer immunity. In therapeutic settings, mouse tumors developing in immunocompetent syngeneic hosts are treated with autologous DCs preloaded with cancer cells exposed to a potential ICD inducer in vitro (generally in combination with immunological adjuvants), or with autologous CD8+ cytotoxic lymphocytes primed in vitro by the same DCs (generally in combination with IL-2 or other cytokines that support expansion in vivo). Tumor control and mouse survival are monitored as indicators of therapeutic anticancer immunity. In abscopal models, mouse cancer cells are harnessed to generate lesions at distant anatomical sites (either artificially, or exploiting the natural capacity of some cell lines to generate metastases), followed by treatment at only one disease site (generally in the context of otherwise inactive systemic immunostimulation). Tumor control at the non-treated disease site and mouse survival are monitored as signs of systemic anticancer immunity with therapeutic relevance. Finally, in intracranial/extracranial models, mouse cancer cells are employed to generate one intracranial and one extracranial tumor, only one of which receives treatment (generally, a systemic agent that cannot cross the blood–brain barrier [BBB] for extracranial lesion, or radiation therapy for intracranial lesions, in both cases in combination with otherwise inactive immunostimulants). As in abscopal models, tumor control at the non-treated disease site and mouse survival are monitored as indicators of therapeutic anticancer immunity with systemic outreach. In all these models, mice achieving systemic, long-term disease eradication are often rechallenged with cancer cells to monitor durability (with the same cancer cells employed for disease establishment) and specificity (with unrelated, but syngeneic cancer cells). ICD, immunogenic cell death; IL-2, interleukin 2.

References

    1. Galluzzi L, Vitale I, Aaronson SA, et al. . Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the nomenclature Committee on cell death 2018. Cell Death Differ 2018;25:486–541. 10.1038/s41418-017-0012-4 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tang D, Kang R, Berghe TV, et al. . The molecular machinery of regulated cell death. Cell Res 2019;29:347–64. 10.1038/s41422-019-0164-5 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Green DR, Ferguson T, Zitvogel L, et al. . Immunogenic and tolerogenic cell death. Nat Rev Immunol 2009;9:353–63. 10.1038/nri2545 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fuchs Y, Steller H. Programmed cell death in animal development and disease. Cell 2011;147:742–58. 10.1016/j.cell.2011.10.033 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Galluzzi L, Buqué A, Kepp O, et al. . Immunogenic cell death in cancer and infectious disease. Nat Rev Immunol 2017;17:97–111. 10.1038/nri.2016.107 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types