Usage Information
Abstract
Tumor immunosuppression affects survival and treatment efficacy. Tumor NOS2/COX2 coexpression strongly predicts poor outcome in estrogen receptor–negative (ER–) breast cancer by promoting metastasis, drug resistance, cancer stemness, and immune suppression. Herein, a spatially distinct NOS2/COX2 and CD3+CD8+PD1– T effector (TEff) cell landscape correlated with poor survival in ER– tumors. NOS2 was primarily expressed at the tumor margin, whereas COX2 together with B7H4 was associated with immune desert regions lacking TEff cells, where a higher ratio of tumor NOS2 or COX2 to TEff cells predicted poor survival. Also, programmed cell death ligand 1/programmed cell death 1, regulatory T cells (TRegs), and IDO1 were primarily associated with stroma-restricted TEff cells. Regardless of the survival outcome, CD4+ T cells and macrophages were primarily in stromal lymphoid aggregates. Finally, in a 4T1 model, COX2 inhibition led to increased CD8+ TEff/CD4+ TReg ratio and CD8+ TEff infiltration while Nos2 deficiency had no significant effect, thus reinforcing our observations that COX2 is an essential component of immunosuppression through CD8+ TEff cell exclusion from the tumor. Our study indicates that tumor NOS2/COX2 expression plays a central role in tumor immune evasion, suggesting that strategies combining clinically available NOS2/COX2 inhibitors with immune therapy could provide effective options for the treatment of aggressive and drug-resistant ER– breast tumors.
Authors
Lisa A. Ridnour, Robert Y.S. Cheng, William F. Heinz, Milind Pore, Ana L. Gonzalez, Elise L. Femino, Rebecca L. Moffat, Adelaide L. Wink, Fatima Imtiaz, Leandro L. Coutinho, Donna Butcher, Elijah F. Edmondson, M. Cristina Rangel, Stephen T.C. Wong, Stanley Lipkowitz, Sharon A. Glynn, Michael P. Vitek, Daniel W. McVicar, Xiaoxian Li, Stephen K. Anderson, Nazareno Paolocci, Stephen M. Hewitt, Stefan Ambs, Timothy R. Billiar, Jenny C. Chang, Stephen J. Lockett, David A. Wink
Usage data is cumulative from July 2025 through May 2026.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 2,429 | 178 |
| 581 | 68 | |
| Figure | 679 | 9 |
| Table | 55 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 319 | 11 |
| Citation downloads | 183 | 0 |
| Totals | 4,246 | 266 |
| Total Views | 4,512 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
