Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are notable innate immune cells, which are further divided into two subpopulations, i.e., monocytic and granulocytic. These cells are traditionally considered to mainly suppress the T-cell responses. However, more updated data indicate that their properties are rather immunomodulatory than solely immunosuppressive. Indeed, MDSCs display extensive crosstalk with other either innate or adaptive immune cells, and, according to the situation under which they are triggered, they may enhance or attenuate the immune response. However, their positive role in host's defense mechanisms under specific conditions is rarely discussed in the literature. In this mini-review, the authors briefly summarise the mechanisms of action of MDSCs under distinct conditions, such as infections and malignancies, with a particular emphasis on their role as components of the innate immunity system.

Keywords

myeloid-derived suppressor cells innate immunity innate immune response innate immune cells infection

Introduction

Innate immunity has been traditionally considered as the first barrier against pathogens and foreign substances, bearing no immunological memory for future attacks by the same invaders, in contrast to the adaptive immunity. However, more recent evidence tends to alter this established perspective, as the innate immunity system is much more complicated as once thought and functions in many ways consisting of humoral and cellular as well as efferent and afferent components. Toll-like receptors (TLRs) and complement components are examples of sensors (afferent components), while lysozyme and nitric oxide (NO) are examples of effectors (efferent components) of the innate immunity system. The innate immunity system has a fundamental role for the actions of the adaptive immunity system. Both systems act in parallel and the cellular components of the innate immunity system are essential for the functions of the adaptive immunity system cells.^1–3

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are immune cells of myeloid origin, which are further divided into two subpopulations in humans, i.e., monocytic CD14 ⁺ CD11b ⁺CD33 ⁺ HLA-DR^–/low (M-MDSCs) and granulocytic or polymorphonuclear CD15 ⁺ CD11b ⁺ CD33 ⁺ HLA-DR^–/low (PMN-MDSCs). Early-stage MDSCs (eMDSCs) that are negative for CD14 and CD15 are proposed as the precursor of both subpopulations. In mice, MDSCs are defined as CD11b ⁺ Gr-1 ⁺ Ly6C⁺ for M-MDSCs and CD11b ⁺ Gr-1 ⁺ Ly6G⁺ for PMN-MDSCs. The term “MDSC” was first introduced in 2007 to describe cells with the above typical immunophenotype and immunosuppressive characteristics. Although there are various speculations for MDSCs’ origin, the “two-signal” model proposed by Gabrilovich et al. is the most widely accepted. The first signal includes growth factors, e.g., colony-stimulating factors (CSF), which trigger the transformation of the hematopoietic stem cell to immature myeloid cell. The second signal comprises several proinflammatory factors, such as S100 calcium-binding protein A8/A9 (S100A8/A9) and nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-kβ), attributing the activated suppressive character to the cell.^4–6

Although MDSCs are thought to mainly suppress the T-cell responses, more updated evidence suggests that their properties are rather immunomodulatory than solely immunosuppressive.^5,7,8 They are implicated in conditions related to infection, malignancy, and autoimmunity, with rapidly evolving elucidation of their roles. While they appear to have a negative impact in most cases, there are particular conditions where these cells are beneficial. For example, in graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), MDSC populations are correlated with better clinical outcomes for the patients, making their expansion a major aim of novel therapeutic strategies for this disease.^9–13

This mini review brings into focus how MDSCs act as part of the innate immunity system, and, more specifically, it concisely lists their interactions with other immune components and their mechanisms of action in relation to the main pursuit of the system, i.e., the microbial attack.

Crosstalk of MDSCs with other innate immune cells

MDSCs are present under healthy conditions in the bone marrow niche, in the spleen, in small numbers in the peripheral blood (PB), and under malignant conditions in the tumour microenvironment (TME). Under conditions of infection, inflammation, and autoimmunity, they may increase in the PB and the site of inflammation. Below, we will briefly summarise the main ways that MDSCs interact with myeloid and lymphoid innate immune cells (Table 1).¹⁴

Table 1.

Crosstalk of MDSCs with other innate immune cells.

Cell types that crosstalk with MDSCs	Implicated factors	Effects of the crosstalk
Tumour cells	Production by tumour cells: VEGF, HIF1α, CXCL1, CXCL2, CXCL7, IL1β, GM-CSF Production by MDSCs: VEGF, CCL3, CCL4, CCL5, IL4, PGE2	Enhancement of pro-tumour functions
Myeloid cells
Macrophages	Decreased production by macrophages of: IL6, IL12, MHCIIIncreased production by MDSCs of: IL10, S100A9	M2 polarisation
DCs	Increased production by MDSCs of: IL10Decreased production by DCs of: IL12	DC dysfunction (affected production of IL12, maturation, capacity to take up antigens, migration, and induction of the production of IFN-γ by T cells)
MCs	CD40-CD40L interactionProduction by MCs of: histamine, IL6, IL13, MIP1α, TNF-α	Enhancement of recruitment, and pro-tumour and/or anti-microbial effects of MDSCs according to the trigger
Lymphoid cells
NK cells	Production by MDSCs of: IDO1, NO, TGF-βReduced expression by NK cells of: perforin, STAT5	Impaired NK-cell cytotoxicity
		Impaired NK-cell cytotoxicity
ILC1	Production by MDSCs of: TGF-β	Impaired transformation of ILC1 to NK cells
ILC2	Production by ILC2 of: IL13	Enhancement of M-MDSC recruitment
ILC3	Production by ILC3 of: IL17, IL10	Enhancement of MDSC recruitment
γδT17 cells	Production by γδT17 cells of: IL17	Enhancement of MDSC recruitment

CCL: CC ligand, CD40-CD40L: cluster of differentiation 40 - CD40 ligand, CXCL: CXC ligand, DC: dendritic cell, GM-CSF: granulocyte-macrophage stimulating factor, HIF1α: hypoxia-inducible factor 1α, IDO1: indoleamine 2,3 dioxygenase 1, IFN-γ: interferon γ, IL: interleukin, ILC: innate lymphoid cell, MC: mast cell, MDSC: myeloid-derived suppressor cell, MHCII: major histocompatibility complex II, MIP1α: macrophage inflammatory protein 1α, NK: natural killer, NO: nitric oxide, PGE2: prostaglandin E2, S100A9: S100 calcium-binding protein A9, STAT5: signal transducer and activator of transcription 5, TGF-β: transforming growth factor β, TNF-α: tumour necrosis factor α, VEGF: vascular endothelial growth factor, γδT17: gammadelta T cells.

In the TME, MDSCs are essential players for the tumour progression by secreting cytokines and chemokines, and by bidirectionally interacting with neoplastic cells and other immune cells. The tumour itself induces the accumulation of MDSCs by the release of neoplastic cell-derived factors, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (HIF1α), CXC ligand (CXCL)1, CXCL2, CXCL7, interleukin (IL)1β, and granulocyte-macrophage CSF (GM-CSF). These factors promote myelopoiesis, block the maturation of myeloid cells and enhance the recruitment of MDSCs. MDSCs, in turn, promote the tumour progression by the secretion of VEGF, CC ligand (CCL)3, CCL4, CCL5, IL4, and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). These factors promote the immunosuppressive, angiogenesis-promoting, and tumour-promoting effects of MDSCs, but also enhance the recruitment of MDSCs themselves. The net result is tumour progression.^15–21

Myeloid cells

The complex association between MDSCs and macrophages is reflected by a wide network of interactions. M2 macrophages have immunosuppressive and pro-tumour characteristics and are the most abundant type in the population of the tumour-associated macrophages (TAMs).²² Their crosstalk leads to decreased expression of IL6, IL12, and major histocompatibility complex II (MHCII) by macrophages, as well as increased production of IL10 by MDSCs, as proposed from the studies by Beury et al., Bunt et al., and Sinha et al. The net result of this two-way interaction is the polarisation towards the M2 type of macrophages.^23–25 Furthermore, M2 macrophages secrete substances in the TME that can induce the production of MDSCs, whereas MDSCs can develop to M2 macrophages themselves under specific triggers.^15,18,26 Kwak et al., for example, proposed that M-MDSCs transform to immunosuppressive macrophages under the influence of S100A9.²⁷

Although MDSCs appear to hinder the function of dendritic cells (DCs), the ways that these cells crosstalk is yet not clear.¹⁵ Hu et al. showed in their hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) mouse model that the production of IL10 by MDSCs inhibited the secretion of IL12 by DCs affecting, thus, their actions. More specifically the authors evaluated the TLR-induced production of IL12 by DCs and the T-cell stimulatory activity of DCs in HCC mice and both were found decreased.²⁸ The functions of DCs, i.e., their maturation, their capacity to take up antigens, their migration ability and their capacity to induce the production of interferon γ (IFN-γ) by T cells, were also impaired by M-MDSCs in the study of Poschke et al.²⁹

In several studies, MDSCs were shown to directly interact in a cell contact-dependent manner with mast cells (MCs).³⁰ Danelli et al. and Jachetti et al. described that MCs enhanced the immunosuppressive activity of PMN-MDSCs through the CD40-CD40 ligand (CD40L) interaction.^31,32 Saleem et al. showed that the co-culture of MDSCs and MCs resulted in increased levels of IL6, IL13, tumour necrosis factor α (TNF-α), and macrophage inflammatory protein 1α (MIP1α), and that MCs enhanced the pro-tumour effects of M-MDSCs but also the antimicrobial effects of PMN-MDSCs.³³ Martin et al. proposed that the histamine released by MCs positively influences the recruitment of MDSCs, and thus allergic patients present with higher counts of these cells.³⁴

Lymphoid cells

MDSCs also interact with natural killer (NK) cells and hamper their cytotoxicity.^16,35,36 They produce several mediators that inhibit the functionality of NK cells, such as transforming growth factor β (TGF-β), according to the studies of Li et al. and Mao et al.^37,38 Stiff et al. further showed that NO produced by MDSCs impairs NK cytotoxicity through hindering their Fc receptor (FcR)-mediated actions.³⁹ Liu et al. performed experiments with tumour-bearing mice, where MDSCs appeared to inhibit NK cytotoxicity via reduced expression of signal transducer and activator of transcription 5 (STAT5) and reduced production of perforin.⁴⁰ As described before, MDSCs produce indoleamine 2,3 dioxygenase (IDO1), and Zhang et al. proposed the axis IDO1/miR-18a/NKG2D/NKG2DL for the MDSC-induced NK-cell suppression. NKG2D is a conserved receptor on NK cells and NKG2DL its ligand. Both molecules are downregulated by miR-18a. The increase of IDO1 expression was correlated with decreased expression of NKG2D and NKG2DL and decreased NK cytotoxicity, which, according to the authors, would lead to decreased capability of NK cells to kill tumour cells. NK-cell cytotoxicity was studied by Zhang et al. in co-cultures with EMT6 cells.⁴¹ Rieber et al. also studied the effect of MDSCs on the NK-cell cytotoxicity. More specifically, cord blood PMN-MDSCs were incubated with NK cells. Afterwards, NK cells were incubated with K562 tumour cells, and the authors concluded that MDSCs impair the NK-cell cytotoxicity in a contact-dependent manner.⁴²

Innate lymphoid cells (ILC) are distinct types of lymphocytes, separated in three major subpopulations, i.e., ILC1, ILC2, and ILC3. They are tissue-resident and are thought to be the analog of T cells in the innate immunity system, as they do not express the specified antigen repertoire of T cells. ILC1 is the analog of Th1 cell acting against intracellular pathogens, ILC2 is the analog of Th2 cell acting against large extracellular pathogens, such as parasites, and ILC3 is the analog of Th17 cell acting against smaller extracellular pathogens, such as bacteria. NK cells and lymphoid tissue-inducer (LTi) cells (present during embryogenesis) are also characterised as ILCs by some researchers.^30,43 Tumino et al. reviewed the interaction between MDSCs and ILCs in the TME. However, there is still a lack of original research directly studying how MDSCs affect ILC populations. Tumino et al. suggested that since ILC1 resemble NK cells, these cells may be affected by MDSCs in the same way. Also, the authors suggested that the production of TGF-β by MDSCs inhibits the transformation of ILC1 to NK cells⁴⁴ Chevalier et al. suggested that ILC2 induce M-MDSC recruitment and actions via production of IL13 in the context of bladder cancer.⁴⁵ Tumino et al. also suggested that ILC3 that are tumour-promoting cells may induce MDSCs via the production of IL17 and IL10,⁴⁴ although this is based on original research concerning ILCs and not directly MDSCs.⁴⁶

Gammadelta T (γδT17) cells is another immune cell population that shares characteristics of both innate and adaptive immune cells. These cells are the major producers of IL17. Yan et al. described a correlation between γδT17 and MDSC counts in colorectal cancer and also showed that γδT17 cells enhance the recruitment of MDSCs by producing IL17.⁴⁷ Rani et al. showed via experiments in mice that γδT17 cells were important for the increase of MDSCs in the burn wound and thus facilitated the wound healing.⁴⁸

It is worth noting that MDSCs mainly display a suppressive effect on T- and B-cell actions. Specifically, MDSCs lead to the depletion of essential amino acids for cell survival, homing and proliferation, impair T-cell receptor function, increase the apoptosis of T and B cells, and induce the development of T regulatory cells.¹⁶ However, as these cells are part of the adaptive immunity system, we chose not to review here in detail the interaction between MDSCs and these cell populations.

Anti- and pro-microbial effects of MDSCs

It is well known that MDSCs are crucial immune players in infectious diseases and may potentially constitute novel targets for the future management of infections. Moreover, understanding the mechanisms that may affect MDSCs following vaccination may lead to the development of more efficient vaccines in some cases.^49,50 During infections, their role has been reported as positive or negative as regards to the clinical outcomes, depending on the type and load of the pathogen and the condition of the host (Figure 1). Ost et al. reviewed the way that MDSCs act during infections by Staphylococcus aureus, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Porphyromonas gingivalis and Klebsiella pneumonia.⁵¹

Figure 1.

The impact of MDSCs on infections. On the left and right sides, with green and red backgrounds, the pathogen-specific infections and conditions, where MDSCs demonstrate a positive or a negative impact on clinical outcomes, respectively, are shown. Created with: BioRender.com.

Negative impact in infection

There are a number of studies showing that MDSCs worsen the infections by Staphylococcus aureus. Tebartz et al. showed with in vitro and in vivo experiments the correlation of the expansion of both MDSC subclasses with acute exacerbation and chronic infection by Staphylococcus aureus in mice.⁵² Heim et al. and Thurlow et al. investigated how MDSCs affect the course of the orthopaedic biofilm infection by Staphylococcus aureus. Interestingly, according to the authors, MDSCs are the main cell population that infiltrates the biofilm. These cells are recruited by IL12 and obstruct the host defense with their immunosuppressive functionality, i.e., via arginase-1 (Arg-1) and inducible NO synthase (iNOS) activity, reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, and secretion of IL10, leading to attenuated activity of macrophages and monocytes of the host.^53–55 According to Skabytska et al., MDSCs impair the host response in skin infections by Staphylococcus aureus.⁵⁶ Furthermore, their increased populations in the lung and peripheral blood unfavourably influence the course of the infection by Mycobacterium tuberculosis.^57–62 Rieber et al. suggested that Pseudomonas aeruginosa induces MDSCs via flagellin, which acts as a pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMP).⁶³ Interestingly, Everett et al. studied the pathogenic capacity of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in burn wounds. Low arginine levels, which were correlated with the counts of MDSCs, as these cells produce Arg-1, seem to be related with increased virulence of the microbe.⁶⁴

Other non-bacterial pathogens, such as viruses, may also induce MDSCs. For example, Cai et al. showed that hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA load in patients with chronic hepatitis C is correlated with the counts of MDSCs.⁶⁵ Qin et al. showed that patients with chronic infection by human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) had increased counts of M-MDSCs, which take part in the decreased T-cell response.⁶⁶ Interestingly, MDSCs have already been studied in infection by SARS-CoV-2 by Agrati et al., showing that patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) display higher counts of MDSCs than milder cases.⁶⁷ Falck-Jones et al. also studied MDSCs in COVID-19 patients. M-MDSCs were found increased in the blood, but not the airways, of the patients and were correlated with the disease severity.⁶⁸

Positive impact in infection

Despite the traditional view concerning the negative role of MDSCs in infectious diseases, several recent studies have argued for their favourable roles against particular pathogens. For instance, Candida albicans and Aspergillus fumigatus induce MDSCs via dectin-1. Both pathogens lead to the induction of immunosuppressive PMN-MDSCs, but only in the case of Candida albicans, adoptive transfer of MDSCs is associated with better survival of the mice.⁶⁹ Saleem et al. showed that PMN-MDSCs contributed to the resolution of infection by Nippostrongylus brasiliensis in their mouse model.³³

In lower respiratory tract infections by Klebsiella pneumoniae, according to Poe et al., MDSCs are beneficial for the recovery of the host, as they facilitate the clearance of the apoptotic neutrophils via the secretion of IL10.⁷⁰ As reviewed previously, MDSCs are particularly crucial for the feto-maternal tolerance, and they are present in large numbers during pregnancy as well as post-partum in the neonatal and infantile periods.¹⁰ Abnormalities in their number or functionality are related to poor clinical outcomes. Leiber et al. compared PMN-MDSCs and neutrophils in neonates. Interestingly, they showed that neonatal PMN-MDSCs not only maintained their immunosuppressive character, but also had antibacterial properties. These cells were capable of suppressing T-cell activity, while also phagocytosing Gram-negative, such as Escherichia coli, and Gram-positive, such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, bacteria. Despite the differences in cytokine secretion and apoptosis between PMN-MDSCs and neutrophils, their phagocytic activity was similar.⁸ He et al. studied in vitro MDSCs from both newborn humans and mice using RNA-sequencing, revealing an enriched antimicrobial response network in both subtypes, i.e., potent capability of killing Escherichia coli in M-MDSCs and Escherichia coli and Candida albicans in PMN-MDSCs.⁷¹

The way that MDSCs exert their possible antibacterial properties is poorly studied. However, since PMN-MDSCs resemble mature neutrophils, as far as their morphology and markers are concerned, we could assume that PMN-MDSCs may act in a similar way against pathogens. Intracellular granules have antimicrobial proteins that can kill a phagocytosed pathogen after their junction with the phagosome or an extracellular pathogen after their release. Phagocytosed pathogens can also be killed by the release of ROS and hydrolytic enzymes in the phagosome. MDSCs do have this panoply, and it is thus possible to act in this way against pathogens.⁷²

Impact of MDSCs in sepsis

Sepsis is characterised in the early stages by an initial proinflammatory response and in the late stages by immunosuppression that makes the septic patient more susceptible to nosocomial infections and leads to poor clinical outcomes. MDSCs are thought to play a central role in this immune-paralysis and the dysfunction of T cells in these patients, as reviewed by Zhang et al.,⁷³ Schrijver et al.,⁷⁴ and Malavika et al.⁷⁵ Thus, targeting MDSCs in sepsis seems an attractive idea.⁷³ Restoration of arginine is an example of treating the effects of MDSCs, which produce Arg-1 and lead to deprivation of arginine.⁷⁶

The implicating microorganisms may differentially induce PMN-MDSCs and M-MDSC subpopulations during sepsis, as shown by Janols et al., who observed that Gram-positive bacteria are related to increased PMN-MDSCs.⁷⁷ The expansion of MDSCs in sepsis seems to be driven by MyD88,⁷⁸ the transcription factors STAT3 and C/EBPβ, the protein S100A9 and the microRNAs miR-21 and miR-181b, as demonstrated in mouse models.^79–82 Patera et al. reported that M-MDSCs increase in septic patients and critically ill non-septic patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) compared to healthy donors.⁸³ Uhel et al. also found increased counts of M-MDSCs in both septic and critically ill non-septic patients. However, PMN-MDSCs were specifically elevated in septic patients and together with important markers of their functionality (Arg-1 and S100A12) were correlated with increased incidence of nosocomial infections in the patients.⁸⁴ Matthias et al. studied MDSCs after severe sepsis and septic shock and, according to their cohort, persistent high counts of these cells were correlated with higher incidence of nosocomial infections, prolonged stay in the ICU, and worse functional status.⁸⁵ Darden et al. implemented single-cell RNA-sequencing in MDSCs from late sepsis patients, and their study revealed that there were three distinct subpopulations, i.e., PMN-MDSCs, M-MDSCs, and eMDSCs, which had immunosuppressive properties.⁸⁶

However, there is the opinion that, during sepsis, regardless of the pathogen, it is essential that the systemic inflammation is restricted at some point, and, in accordance with this, Sander et al. described that MDSCs had a positive impact on survival in a mouse model of polymicrobial sepsis.⁸⁷ Brudecki et al. also proposed that MDSCs are beneficial for the host during sepsis and display different roles during early and late stages of the condition, through proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory effects, respectively.⁸⁸

It is proposed in the literature that the two opposite effects of MDSCs during sepsis reflect that these cells are beneficial in early sepsis, where an inflammation storm is unwanted, and deleterious in late sepsis, where immune-paralysis leads to unfavourable clinical outcomes. This may be reflected in the worse prognosis accompanied by increased counts of MDSCs in most clinical studies, and, on the other hand, the positive actions of MDSCs shown in experimental studies.^74,89 Furthermore, this opinion for the dual role of MDSCs in sepsis could be strengthened by the recent study of Schrijver et al., who enrolled critically ill patients with pneumonia and sepsis with multi-organ failure and correlated for the first time the increased counts of M-MDSCs with better survival of the patients.⁹⁰

Closing remarks

The diverse roles of MDSCs as part of the innate immune system in infectious and malignant diseases have attracted particular interest, whereas their precise mechanisms of action are yet to be unraveled. Under different conditions, they may interact in different ways with other immune cells to either enhance or inhibit the immune response. For instance, in the tumour microenvironment, MDSCs facilitate the escape of the neoplastic cells from the host's defense mechanisms, while, in neonatal infections, they demonstrate phagocytic capabilities. The better understanding of the particular roles and functions of MDSCs in malignant and infectious diseases and the elucidation of their complex interactions with myeloid and lymphoid innate immune cells may contribute to the development of novel diagnostic and therapeutic strategies involving MDSCs as potential biomarkers and treatment targets.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Nikoleta Bizymi

Andreas M. Matthaiou

Helen A. Papadaki

References

Beutler

. Innate immunity: an overview. Mol Immunol 2004; 40: 845–859.

Herwald

Egesten

. Cells of innate and adaptive immunity: a matter of class? J Innate Immun 2017; 9: 109–110.

Gasteiger

D’osualdo

Schubert

, et al. Cellular innate immunity: an old game with new players. J Innate Immun 2017; 9: 111–125.

Gabrilovich

Nagaraj

. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells as regulators of the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol 2009; 9: 162–174.

Bizymi

Matthaiou

Matheakakis

, et al. New perspectives on myeloid-derived suppressor cells and their emerging role in haematology. J Clin Med 2022; 11: 5326.

Bronte

Brandau

Chen

, et al. Recommendations for myeloid-derived suppressor cell nomenclature and characterization standards. Nat Commun 2016; 7: 12150.

Budhwar

Verma

, et al. The Yin and Yang of myeloid derived suppressor cells. Front Immunol 2018; 9: 2776.

Leiber

Schwarz

Köstlin

, et al. Neonatal myeloid derived suppressor cells show reduced apoptosis and immunosuppressive activity upon infection with Escherichia coli. Eur J Immunol 2017; 47: 1009–1021.

Bizymi

Bjelica

Kittang

, et al. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells in hematologic diseases: promising biomarkers and treatment targets. HemaSphere 2019; 3: e168.

10.

Bizymi

Georgopoulou

Mastrogamvraki

, et al. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) in the umbilical cord blood: biological significance and possible therapeutic applications. J Clin Med 2022; 11: 727.

11.

Wang

Huang

. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells in hematological malignancies: Friends or foes. J Hematol Oncol 2019; 12: 105.

12.

Blanc

Jitschin

Mougiakakos

. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a double-edged sword? Oncoimmunology 2013; 2: 7–9.

13.

Bizymi

Papadaki

. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) in haematology. J Clin Med 2021; 11: 187.

14.

Winfield

Delano

Pande

, et al. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells in cancer cachexia syndrome: a new explanation for an old problem. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2008; 32: 651–655.

15.

Ostrand-Rosenberg

Sinha

Beury

, et al. Cross-talk between myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC), macrophages, and dendritic cells enhances tumor-induced immune suppression. Semin Cancer Biol 2012; 22: 275–281.

16.

Parker

Beury

Ostrand-Rosenberg

. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells: critical cells driving immune suppression in the tumor microenvironment. Adv Cancer Res 2015; 128: 95–139.

17.

Hinshaw

Shevde

. The tumor microenvironment innately modulates cancer progression. Cancer Res 2019; 79: 4557–4567.

18.

Gabrilovich

Ostrand-Rosenberg

Bronte

. Coordinated regulation of myeloid cells by tumours. Nat Rev Immunol 2012; 12: 253–268.

19.

Kumar

Patel

Tcyganov

, et al. The nature of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in the tumor microenvironment. Trends Immunol 2016; 37: 208–220.

20.

Condamine

Ramachandran

Youn

, et al. Regulation of tumor metastasis by myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Annu Rev Med 2015; 66: 97–110.

21.

Iwata

Kondo

Kimura

, et al. PD-L1 + MDSCs are increased in HCC patients and induced by soluble factor in the tumor microenvironment. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 39296.

22.

Najafi

Hashemi Goradel

Farhood

, et al. Macrophage polarity in cancer: a review. J Cell Biochem 2019; 120: 2756–2765.

23.

Beury

Parker

Nyandjo

, et al. Cross-talk among myeloid-derived suppressor cells, macrophages, and tumor cells impacts the inflammatory milieu of solid tumors. J Leukoc Biol 2014; 96: 1109–1118.

24.

Bunt

Clements

Hanson

, et al. Inflammation enhances myeloid-derived suppressor cell cross-talk by signaling through toll-like receptor 4. J Leukoc Biol 2009; 85: 996–1004.

25.

Sinha

Clements

Bunt

, et al. Cross-talk between myeloid-derived suppressor cells and macrophages subverts tumor immunity toward a type 2 response. J Immunol 2007; 179: 977–983.

26.

Eruslanov

Daurkin

Ortiz

, et al. Pivotal advance: tumor-mediated induction of myeloid-derived suppressor cells and M2-polarized macrophages by altering intracellular PGE2 catabolism in myeloid cells. J Leukoc Biol 2010; 88: 839–848.

27.

Kwak

Wang

Deng

, et al. Distinct populations of immune-suppressive macrophages differentiate from monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells in cancer. Cell Rep 2020; 33: 108571.

28.

Gan

Zhang

, et al. Up-regulated myeloid-derived suppressor cell contributes to hepatocellular carcinoma development by impairing dendritic cell function. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011; 46: 156–164.

29.

Poschke

Mao

Adamson

, et al. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells impair the quality of dendritic cell vaccines. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2012; 61: 827–838.

30.

Albini

Bruno

Noonan

, et al. Contribution to tumor angiogenesis from innate immune cells within the tumor microenvironment: Implications for immunotherapy. Front Immunol 2018; 9: 527.

31.

Jachetti

Cancila

Rigoni

, et al. Cross-Talk between myeloid-derived suppressor cells and mast cells mediates tumor-specific immunosuppression in prostate cancer. Cancer Immunol Res 2018; 6: 552–565.

32.

Danelli

Frossi

Gri

, et al. Mast cells boost myeloid-derived suppressor cell activity and contribute to the development of tumor-favoring microenvironment. Cancer Immunol Res 2015; 3: 85–95.

33.

Saleem

Martin

Morales

, et al. Cutting edge: mast cells critically augment myeloid-derived suppressor cell activity. J Immunol 2012; 189: 511–515.

34.

Martin

Saleem

Folgosa

, et al. Mast cell histamine promotes the immunoregulatory activity of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. J Leukoc Biol 2014; 96: 151–159.

35.

Tumino

Di Pace

Besi

, et al. Interaction between MDSC and NK cells in solid and hematological malignancies: impact on HSCT. Front Immunol 2021; 12: 638841.

36.

Elkabets

Ribeiro

VSG

Dinarello

, et al. IL-1β regulates a novel myeloid-derived suppressor cell subset that impairs NK cell development and function. Eur J Immunol 2010; 40: 3347–3357.

37.

Han

Guo

, et al. Cancer-expanded myeloid-derived suppressor cells induce anergy of NK cells through membrane-bound TGF-β1. J Immunol 2009; 182: 240–249.

38.

Mao

Sarhan

Steven

, et al. Inhibition of tumor-derived prostaglandin-E2 blocks the induction of myeloid-derived suppressor cells and recovers natural killer cell activity. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20: 4096–4106.

39.

Stiff

Trikha

Mundy-Bosse

, et al. Nitric oxide production by myeloid-derived suppressor cells plays a role in impairing Fc receptor–mediated natural killer cell function. Clin Cancer Res 2018; 24: 1891–1904.

40.

Liu

Kappes

, et al. Expansion of spleen myeloid suppressor cells represses NK cell cytotoxicity in tumor-bearing host. Blood 2007; 109: 4336–4342.

41.

Zhang

Han

, et al. IDO1 Impairs NK cell cytotoxicity by decreasing NKG2D/NKG2DLs via promoting miR-18a. Mol Immunol 2018; 103: 144–155.

42.

Rieber

Gille

Köstlin

, et al. Neutrophilic myeloid-derived suppressor cells in cord blood modulate innate and adaptive immune responses. Clin Exp Immunol 2013; 174: 45–52.

43.

Vivier

Artis

Colonna

, et al. Innate lymphoid cells: 10 years on. Cell 2018; 174: 1054–1066.

44.

Tumino

Fiore

Pelosi

, et al. Myeloid derived suppressor cells in tumor microenvironment: interaction with innate lymphoid cells. Semin Immunol 2022; 61–64: 101668.

45.

Chevalier

Trabanelli

Racle

, et al. ILC2-modulated T cell–to-MDSC balance is associated with bladder cancer recurrence. J Clin Invest 2017; 127: 2916–2929.

46.

Hart

Byrne

Molloy

, et al. IL-10 immunomodulation of myeloid cells regulates a murine model of ovarian cancer. Front Immunol 2011; 2: 29.

47.

Yan

Huang

. Innate γδT17 cells convert cancer-elicited inflammation into immunosuppression through myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Oncoimmunology 2014; 3: e953423.

48.

Rani

Zhang

Schwacha

. Gamma delta (γδ) T-cells regulate wound myeloid cell activity after burn. Shock 2014; 42: 133–141.

49.

Prochetto

Borgna

Jiménez-Cortegana

, et al. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells and vaccination against pathogens. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2022; 12: 1003781.

50.

Ostrand-Rosenberg

Lamb

Pawelec

. Here, there, and everywhere: myeloid-derived suppressor cells in immunology. J Immunol 2023; 210: 1183–1197.

51.

Ost

Singh

Peschel

, et al. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells in bacterial infections. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2016; 6: 37.

52.

Tebartz

Horst

Sparwasser

, et al. A major role for myeloid-derived suppressor cells and a minor role for regulatory T cells in immunosuppression during staphylococcus aureus infection. J Immunol 2015; 194: 1100–1111.

53.

Heim

Vidlak

Scherr

, et al. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells contribute to staphylococcus aureus orthopedic biofilm infection. J Immunol 2014; 192: 3778–3792.

54.

Heim

Vidlak

Scherr

, et al. IL-12 promotes myeloid-derived suppressor cell recruitment and bacterial persistence during staphylococcus aureus orthopedic implant infection. J Immunol 2015; 194: 3861–3872.

55.

Thurlow

Hanke

Fritz

, et al. Staphylococcus aureus biofilms prevent macrophage phagocytosis and attenuate inflammation in vivo. J Immunol 2011; 186: 6585–6596.

56.

Skabytska

Wölbing

Günther

, et al. Cutaneous innate immune sensing of toll-like receptor 2–6 ligands suppresses T cell immunity by inducing myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Immunity 2014; 41: 762–775.

57.

Du Plessis

Loebenberg

Kriel

, et al. Increased frequency of myeloid-derived suppressor cells during active tuberculosis and after recent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection suppresses T-cell function. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 188: 724–732.

58.

Obregón-Henao

Henao-Tamayo

Orme

, et al. Gr1intCD11b + myeloid-derived suppressor cells in mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. PLoS One 2013; 8: e80669.

59.

Knaul

Jörg

Oberbeck-Mueller

, et al. Lung-residing myeloid-derived suppressors display dual functionality in murine pulmonary tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014; 190: 1053–1066.

60.

Yang

Wang

Jiang

, et al. Identification of CD244-expressing myeloid-derived suppressor cells in patients with active tuberculosis. Immunol Lett 2014; 158: 66–72.

61.

El Daker

Sacchi

Tempestilli

, et al. Granulocytic myeloid derived suppressor cells expansion during active pulmonary tuberculosis is associated with high nitric oxide plasma level. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0123772.

62.

Tsiganov

Verbina

Radaeva

, et al. Gr-1dimCD11b + immature myeloid-derived suppressor cells but not neutrophils are markers of lethal tuberculosis infection in mice. J Immunol 2014; 192: 4718–4727.

63.

Rieber

Brand

Hector

, et al. Flagellin induces myeloid-derived suppressor cells: implications for pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in cystic fibrosis lung disease. J Immunol 2013; 190: 1276–1284.

64.

Everett

Turner

Cai

, et al. Arginine is a critical substrate for the pathogenesis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in burn wound infections. mBio 2017; 8: e02160-16.

65.

Cai

Qin

Guo

, et al. Clinical significance and functional studies of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in chronic hepatitis C patients. J Clin Immunol 2013; 33: 798–808.

66.

Qin

Cai

Pan

, et al. Expansion of monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells dampens T cell function in HIV-1-seropositive individuals. J Virol 2013; 87: 1477–1490.

67.

Agrati

Sacchi

Bordoni

, et al. Expansion of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Cell Death Differ 2020; 27: 3196–3207.

68.

Falck-Jones

Vangeti

, et al. Functional monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells increase in blood but not airways and predict COVID-19 severity. J Clin Invest 2021; 131: e144734.

69.

Rieber

Singh

Öz

, et al. Pathogenic fungi regulate immunity by inducing neutrophilic myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Cell Host Microbe 2015; 17: 507–514.

70.

Poe

Arora

Oriss

, et al. STAT1-regulated Lung MDSC-like cells produce IL-10 and efferocytose apoptotic neutrophils with relevance in resolution of bacterial pneumonia. Mucosal Immunol 2013; 6: 189–199.

71.

Perego

, et al. Transitory presence of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in neonates is critical for control of inflammation. Nat Med 2018; 24: 224–231.

72.

Aarts

CEM

Kuijpers

. Neutrophils as myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Eur J Clin Investig 2018; 48: e12989.

73.

Zhang

Fang

Gao

, et al. MDSCs in sepsis-induced immunosuppression and its potential therapeutic targets. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 2023; 69: 90–103.

74.

Schrijver

Théroude

Roger

. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells in sepsis. Front Immunol 2019; 10: 327.

75.

Malavika

Sanju

Poorna

, et al. Role of myeloid derived suppressor cells in sepsis. Int Immunopharmacol 2022; 104: 108452.

76.

Ochoa Gautier

. Dietary modification of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) activity in sepsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2022; 119: e2201396119.

77.

Janols

Bergenfelz

Allaoui

, et al. A high frequency of MDSCs in sepsis patients, with the granulocytic subtype dominating in gram-positive cases. J Leukoc Biol 2014; 96: 685–693.

78.

Delano

Scumpia

Weinstein

, et al. MyD88-dependent expansion of an immature GR-1 + CD11b + population induces T cell suppression and Th2 polarization in sepsis. J Exp Med 2007; 204: 1463–1474.

79.

Alkhateeb

Kumbhare

Bah

, et al. S100a9 maintains myeloid-derived suppressor cells in chronic sepsis by inducing miR-21 and miR-181b. Mol Immunol 2019; 112: 72–81.

80.

Dai

Kumbhare

Youssef

, et al. Intracellular S100A9 promotes myeloid-derived suppressor cells during late sepsis. Front Immunol 2017; 8: 1565.

81.

McClure

McPeak

Youssef

, et al. Stat3 and C/EBPβ synergize to induce miR-21 and miR-181b expression during sepsis. Immunol Cell Biol 2017; 95: 42–55.

82.

McClure

Brudecki

Ferguson

, et al. MicroRNA 21 (miR-21) and miR-181b couple with NFI-A to generate myeloid-derived suppressor cells and promote immunosuppression in late sepsis. Infect Immun 2014; 82: 3816–3825.

83.

Patera

Drewry

Chang

, et al. Frontline science: defects in immune function in patients with sepsis are associated with PD-1 or PD-L1 expression and can be restored by antibodies targeting PD-1 or PD-L1. J Leukoc Biol 2016; 100: 1239–1254.

84.

Uhel

Azzaoui

Grégoire

, et al. Early expansion of circulating granulocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells predicts development of nosocomial infections in patients with sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017; 196: 315–327.

85.

Mathias

Delmas

Ozrazgat-Baslanti

, et al. Human myeloid-derived suppressor cells are associated with chronic immune suppression after severe sepsis/septic shock. Ann Surg 2017; 265: 827–834.

86.

Darden

Bacher

Brusko

, et al. Single-cell RNA-seq of human myeloid-derived suppressor cells in late sepsis reveals multiple subsets with unique transcriptional responses: a pilot study. Shock 2021; 55: 587–595.

87.

Sander

Sackett

Dierssen

, et al. Hepatic acute-phase proteins control innate immune responses during infection by promoting myeloid-derived suppressor cell function. J Exp Med 2010; 207: 1453–1464.

88.

Brudecki

Ferguson

McCall

, et al. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells evolve during sepsis and can enhance or attenuate the systemic inflammatory response. Infect Immun 2012; 80: 2026–2034.

89.

Dai

El Gazzar

, et al. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells: paradoxical roles in infection and immunity. J Innate Immun 2015; 7: 116–126.

90.

Schrijver

Karakike

Théroude

, et al. High levels of monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells are associated with favorable outcome in patients with pneumonia and sepsis with multi-organ failure. Intensive Care Med Exp 2022; 10: 5.

Immunomodulatory actions of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in the context of innate immunity

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Crosstalk of MDSCs with other innate immune cells

Myeloid cells

Lymphoid cells

Anti- and pro-microbial effects of MDSCs

Negative impact in infection

Positive impact in infection

Impact of MDSCs in sepsis

Closing remarks

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References