Metabolic cooperation between cancer and non-cancerous stromal cells is pivotal in cancer progression

Abstract

The way cancer cells adapt to microenvironment is crucial for the success of carcinogenesis, and metabolic fitness is essential for a cancer cell to survive and proliferate in a certain organ/tissue. The metabolic remodeling in a tumor niche is endured not only by cancer cells but also by non-cancerous cells that share the same microenvironment. For this reason, tumor cells and stromal cells constitute a complex network of signal and organic compound transfer that supports cellular viability and proliferation.

The intensive dual-address cooperation of all components of a tumor sustains disease progression and metastasis. Herein, we will detail the role of cancer-associated fibroblasts, cancer-associated adipocytes, and inflammatory cells, mainly monocytes/macrophages (tumor-associated macrophages), in the remodeling and metabolic adaptation of tumors.

Keywords

Cancer metabolism microenvironment cancer-associated fibroblasts cancer-associated adipocytes tumor-associated macrophages

Cancer cells metabolic fitness is crucial for cancer establishment

Metabolism is undoubtedly one of the fields of knowledge that is currently booming. In our opinion, it will certainly be a niche of scientific discoveries that will allow the evolution of the knowledge and treatment of diseases, namely cancer. The metabolic adaptation of cancer cells not only permits the development and establishment of a tumor in a certain microenvironment but also conditions the response to the therapy.

Metabolic adaptation cannot be assessed exclusively from the cancer cell point of view but should also consider the contribution of normal (non-cancerous) cells in the same tissue or organ. Metabolism does not consist solely on the intracellular network that shares and provides organic compounds among the various chemical reactions that make up the metabolic dynamics. It also encompasses the extracellular organic and signaling molecules that supplement and mediate stimuli, which regulate the entire metabolic functioning of a cell. In cancer, the surrounding cells (fibroblasts, endothelial cells, immune cells, and adipocytes) influence the tumor microenvironment, the tumor cell biology and metabolism. In fact, in the metabolic interactions between tumor and stroma, the tumor cells take advantage of the metabolic substrates (e.g. glutamine, lactate, and fatty acids) from local and/or stromal sources.^1–4 Thus, the tumor microenvironment is composed and depends on the functioning of several types of cells (malignant and normal) that continuously share organic and signaling molecules, cooperating and making possible the entire system’s survival. We will include in this review both solid and hematological tumors, as the former despite the spread in the blood stream are also generated and maintained in an organic context, such as bone marrow, spleen, and lymph nodes.

The connective tissue, which is the most part of the stroma, plays an important role in the sustainability of a tumor and cancer cells homing, being cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), cancer-associated adipocytes (CAAs) and inflammatory cells, mainly monocytes/macrophages (tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs)) important players in cancer development.

Fibroblasts

Fibroblasts are the major component of the tumor stroma, playing an important role in cancer progression through their molecular cooperation with cancer cells. CAFs and tumor cells symbiosis allows a supportive and enriched microenvironment, important for tumor survival, proliferation, migration, and chemoresistance^5,6 (Figure 1). Despite the molecular mechanisms being not fully known, this cooperation has been described in different cancer contexts, such as pancreatic, colon, ovarian, leukemia, and breast cancer.^7–13 Also, CAFs are able to support angiogenesis and metastasis by promoting matrix remodeling and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT).^14–16

Figure 1.

CAFs are reprogrammed by cancer cells and tumor microenvironment. Cancer cells produce cytokines (interleukine-6 (IL-6)), chemokines (chemokine (C–X–C motif) ligand 2 (CXCL2)), and growth factors (tumor growth factor (TGF) and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF)) to stimulate the transformation of normal fibroblasts (NFs) into activated cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs).^24–26 CAFs reprogramming involves the loss of caveolin 1 (Cav-1) and an increase in the levels of α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA) and tenascin.²³ CAFs will control tumor growth, metastasis, and angiogenesis through the secretion of TGFβ, IL-6, CXCL12, and chitinase-3-like-1 (CHI3L1).^27–29

Fibrotic tissue has a role in cancer promotion and progression

In a normal and physiologically regenerative process, the wound site is strongly enriched in activated normal fibroblasts (NFs), a reversible process that confers an enhancement of contractile, synthetic, and metabolic properties.^17–20 Activated NFs have an important and recognized role in acute injury due to their ability to produce collagen, fibronectin, cytokines, and growth factors.¹⁹

NFs and CAFs are distinct cell types with different molecular markers and functional plasticities; hence, the close contact of CAFs and cancer cells within a tumor is essential for a favorable pro-carcinogenic microenvironment.^17–20

In comparison to NFs, CAFs display higher levels of pro-tumorigenic features, and they have lower contractility and an increased survival, proliferation, and extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling capacity. Although CAFs retain the capacity of synthesizing and secreting collagen and fibrous proteins (e.g. reticulin, elastin, and glycoproteins).^17,21–23 In vitro studies in colon⁹ and pancreatic cancer^7,11 described that cancer cell lines increase their proliferation rate upon exposure to CAFs-conditioned media. CAFs also secrete chemokines to promote angiogenesis in a paracrine-dependent manner. Chemokine (C–X–C motif) ligand 2 (CXCL2), also known as stromal cell–derived factor-1 (SDF-1), secreted by CAFs binds to C–X–C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR-4) in tumor cells, increasing CXCL12/CXCR4 signaling, which promotes proliferation and angiogenesis.²⁷ Recently, chitinase-3-like protein 1 (CHI3L1) secreted by CAFs has been implicated in the promotion of tumor progression and metastasis of breast carcinomas²⁸ through an unknown mechanism (Figure 1).

Besides their differences, NFs and CAFs still share their activation process which requires the intervention of several elements, such as transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-β1), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), CXCL12, and interleukin-6 (IL-6)^{24–26,30–32} (Figure 1).

CAFs reprogramming involves the loss of caveolin 1 (Cav1) and an increase in the levels of α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA) and tenascin²³ (Figure 1). Recently, Busch et al.³³ reported a new member of aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) family, implicated in CAF transformation and consequent secretion of angiogenic and chemotactic growth factors. In addition, CAFs are enriched in growth differentiation factor 5 (GDF5), a member of TGF-β1/bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) family, that supports the migration, invasion, and progression of pancreatic cancer cells.²⁹

CAFs play a role in cancer metabolic fitness

The higher proliferation observed in CAFs is sustained by an increase in glycolysis and autophagy in order to mobilize internal sources of nutrients, providing to the Krebs cycle (tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA)) with metabolic intermediates. The glycolytic switch observed in CAFs that are needed to support the metabolic adaptation of cancer cells, even in normoxia conditions, may be driven by a decrease in oxygen availability, hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha (HIF-1α) stabilization, transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) and PDGF signaling, or reactive oxygen species (ROS)-mediated loss of caveolin-1^{30–32,34–38} (Figure 1).

IL-6 has been described as a putative intervenient in a metabolic switch of CAFs for glycolysis by increasing the expression of glycolytic enzymes such as phosphofructokinase, hexokinase, and fructose-2,6-biophosphatase via signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) activation.³⁹ Also, TGF-β1-/PDGF-mediated CAF differentiation induces a decrease in the expression of Krebs cycle enzymes concomitant with an increase in glucose uptake and glycolysis.^40,41 In metabolically reprogrammed CAFs, the downregulation of isocitrate dehydrogenase 3a (IDH3a) leads to a decrease in α-ketoglutarate (α-KG) and consequently decrease in the stabilization of HIF-1α protein, which in turn promotes glycolysis and inhibits oxidative phosphorylation by upregulating NADH dehydrogenase [ubiquinone] 1 alpha subcomplex subunit 4-like 2 (NDUFA4L2), even under normoxic conditions.⁴¹ Despite the precise mechanism driving the increase in glycolysis in CAFs is not fully understood, it has been demonstrated that CAFs from breast cancer patients with poor prognosis express higher levels of glycolytic enzymes.¹⁰

Cancer cells take advantage of the resulting metabolites from the altered CAF metabolism (Figure 2). A good example of the constant and dynamic metabolic crosstalk between CAFs and tumor cells is lactate, the final metabolite of glycolysis, which is produced and exported by CAFs and further imported and consumed by cancer cells. CAF glycolysis–driven metabolites sustain mitochondrial biogenesis and oxidative mitochondrial metabolism of cancer cells.^10,12,42

Figure 2.

The metabolic crosstalk in tumor microenvironment between CAFs and tumor cells that sustain tumor growth. In a dynamic tumor microenvironment, tumor and surrounding cells act as a functional network exchanging metabolic intermediates, oxygen, and nutrients that are essential for the survival, growth, and proliferation of the tumor.^43–46 During metabolic reprogramming of NF to CAFs, a decrease in the expression of mitochondrial transcription factor A (TFAM) induces a loss of Cav-1 and a decline in oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS).^17,23 Mitochondrial biogenesis drives cancer aggressiveness, and in contrast to the observations made in cancer cells, during fibroblast transformation, the activity of complex I, complex II, and complex IV of OXPHOS decreases in concomitance with an increase in glycolysis.^47–51 In glycolytic CAFs, an increase in MCT4 levels allows lactate export, followed by their influx in cancer cells via MCT1 that enters in TCA cycle driving oxidative metabolism—“reverse Warburg effect.”^10,52,53 MCT4 expression also occurs in anaerobic cancer cells coupled to well-oxygenated cancer cells with OXPHOS activity.⁵³ Moreover, to sustain metabolic requirements for cancer proliferation, CAFs use other carbon sources to produce amino acids (e.g. glutamine and alanine), acting as suppliers of tumor cells.^54,55

In prostate cancer, the close contact of fibroblasts with cancer cells triggers CAF metabolic reprogramming, with higher expression of glucose transporter isoform 1 (GLUT1), lactate production and export through de novo expressed monocarboxylate transporter 4 (MCT4). Interestingly, the metabolic modulation observed in prostate cancer cells was the opposite, since they decrease GLUT1 expression and increase lactate influx via monocarboxylate transporter 1 (MCT1).⁵⁶ This differential expression of MCT4 and MCT1 in CAFs and cancer cells has been associated with poor clinical outcome of prostate cancer.⁵⁷ In CAFs under co-culture conditions, MCT4 overexpression protects from death fibroblasts and breast cancer cells.⁵⁸ Recently, Shan et al.⁵⁹ reported that in co-culture systems, inhibiting MCT1 in CAFs results in a decrease in pyruvate kinase 2 expression, glucose import, and lactate production, with a concomitant decrease in pancreatic cancer cell migration. Moreover, in breast cancer CAFs, the activation of G-protein coupled estrogen receptor (GPER)/cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP)/protein kinase A (PKA)/cAMP response element–binding (CREB) and phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT/mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) signaling pathways triggers the aerobic glycolysis switch, resulting in the secretion of pyruvate and lactate that fuels and increases the mitochondrial activity in cancer cells.⁶⁰

In proliferative cancer cells, the glutamine availability is essential for mitochondrial metabolism. Glutamine catabolism, more important than glucose metabolism in cancer cells, provides the anaplerotic carbons and oxoloacetic acid to fuel the TCA cycle, resulting in ATP and carbon skeleton production, essential for macromolecules and nucleotide synthesis.^61–63 Glutamine metabolism in CAFs is able to stimulate proliferation in cancer cells.^54,64 Interestingly, many studies associated the increase in glutaminolysis with carcinogenesis and showed that targeting this pathway could impair tumor proliferation.^63,65,66 In fact, glutamine transporter SLC6A14 is often increased in cancer cells in the presence of CAFs in a glutamine concentration–dependent pattern.⁸ Glutaminolysis also decreases cell stress through glutathione (GSH) production, releasing alanine and ammonia as catabolic-driven products.^64,67,68

Yang et al.⁵⁵ reported that in an ovarian carcinoma model, CAFs upregulate glutamine anabolic pathway. The authors propose that co-targeting glutamine synthetase in CAFs and glutaminase in cancer could be an adjuvant strategy to the conventional ovarian cancer therapy.

In cancer microenvironment, it remains unclear if the only source of lipids is adipocytes. In melanoma and prostate cancer, fibroblasts transfer lipids to neighboring cells using microvesicles.⁶⁹ In pancreatic cancer, CAFs directly transfer lysophospholipids (lsyo-PLs) to cancer cells via lipid droplets. Recently, reinforcing the relevance of the metabolic synergy between CAFs and cancer cells, Lopes-Coelho et al.⁷⁰ demonstrated that CAFs cooperate with breast cancer cells as fatty acid suppliers in vitro and in vivo. Breast cancer cells exposed to CAFs-conditioned media increase their lipid cellular content and increase the expression of fatty acid transporter 1 (FATP1), favoring fatty acid uptake. Moreover, FATP1 is pointed as a putative target to disrupt lipid symbiosis between CAFs and breast cancer cells, thereby suppressing tumor progression.

Autophagy—a cellular phenomenon underlying CAF contribution for cancer progression

During metabolic reprogramming of CAFs, autophagy was also described as one of the upregulated pathways, being involved in CAF phenotype as active suppliers of energy sources for cancer cells.² Autophagy is a primarily survival phenomenon in which cells degrade their own components to obtain enough energy to keep themselves alive; but a prolonged autophagic process will induce cell death. In head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, it has been described that the inhibition in CAFs of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (Vps34), an upstream kinase of the autophagy pathway, decreases cancer progression.⁷¹ In triple-negative breast carcinoma (TNBC), autophagic CAFs improve cancer cell features (e.g. proliferation and invasion) and EMT process through Wnt/β-catenin pathway.⁷²

Autophagic CAFs act as active players favoring the pro-tumorigenic nutrient-rich microenvironment. Cancer cells, in nutrient deprivation or energy restriction, can be fed by products resulting from autophagic CAFs. The induction of autophagy in CAFs is driven by the activation of TGFβ/SMAD signaling pathway,^73–75 the mitochondrial fission factor (MFF) through NFkB signaling pathway,⁷⁶ and by the upregulation of mTOR/AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) pathway,⁷⁷ releasing lactate and glutamine. In contrast, mTORC1/c-Myc axis seems to be involved in the inhibition of the metabolic reprogramming of CAFs.³⁷ So, within a tumor, autophagy works in CAFs similar to glycolysis in cancer cells. In cancer cells, most of the times, autophagy and glycolysis do not work together.^1,2 Actually, mTORC1 is involved in glycolysis impairment in cancer cells through hexokinase 2 inhibition, which activates autophagy as in this molecular process mTORC1 becomes inactive.³ Nevertheless, some studies have shown that in particular genetic background, such as mutations in tumor suppressor gene p53 or oncogene KRas, glycolysis and autophagy can work simultaneously contributing for cancer cell survival, cancer progression, and metastasis.^78,79

In breast cancer, CAFs with high levels of the lipid modified form of microtubule-associated proteins 1A/1B light chain 3B (LC3II), an autophagosome marker, are associated with a more aggressive cancer phenotype due to the release of high-mobility group protein 1 (HMG-1) by CAFs that binds to toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) in breast cancer cells, enhancing their tumorigenicity.⁸⁰ Similarly, Lee et al.⁸¹ described that pancreatic cancer cells are able to secrete transglutaminase (TG2) in order to stimulate fibroblasts to produce and secrete laminin A1, promoting tumor growth and protecting from cytotoxicity induced by drugs. Moreover, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma metabolism relies, in part, in alanine bioavailability secreted by autophagic stellate cells. Alanine acts as an alternative carbon source to fuel Krebs cycle, promoting tumor growth.⁸²

As mentioned above, glutaminolysis releases ammonia, which is toxic in normal cells, but in cancer cells ammonia is used to induce autophagy and neutralize internal pH.^64,67,68 Furthermore, glutamine has also been implicated in the induction of CAF autophagy and consequently the promotion of cancer cell proliferation, which becomes protected from drug-induced cell death.⁸ In addition, glutaminolysis and mTORC1 form a positive loop of mutual activation, which ultimately contributes for autophagy inhibition,⁸³ promoting cell growth and cancer progression.

Autophagy can regulate lipid metabolism by lipophagy.^75,84 However, in CAFs, the possible parallelism between an increase in autophagy and in lipid metabolism is not completely explored so far. However, the transfer of Lsyo-PLs mediates the metabolic reprogramming of CAFs, inducing autophagy to support the metabolic requirements of cancer cells.⁸⁵

Adipocytes

Nowadays, it is already well established that adipose tissue is a complex organ with endocrine, metabolic, and immune roles. Adipose tissue comprises three main tissues: the brown adipose tissue that controls mainly thermogenesis, the mammary adipose tissue, and the white adipose tissue which is considered the most complex at the cellular level and responsible for the control of weight regulation.^86–90

Adipose tissue has a role in cancer promotion and progression

Adipocyte-secreted factors (e.g. adipokines and adipocytokines; Figure 3) act on cancer cell proliferation, local invasion, metastatic spread, and resistance to chemotherapy and radiotherapy.¹⁰⁸ Breast cancer is one of the best examples of adipocytes–tumor cell interaction in which adipocytes act as fatty acid providers.^93,97 Besides this, tumor cells express receptors for adipokines; for instance, leptin has been described as promoting proliferation in vitro in human breast cancer cell lines,^109,110 and insulin growth factor 1 (IGF-1) secreted by adipocytes also stimulates breast cancer cell lines’ growth.¹¹¹ On the contrary, lower levels of adiponectin are associated with carcinogenesis and are linked to stimulation of apoptosis.¹¹²

Figure 3.

The role of adipocytes’ secretome in cancer proliferation, progression, and metastasis. Correlation between increased adipose tissues (ATs) with worse cancer patient’s prognosis is already established.^91,92 Adipocytes, the major component of AT, are in a close contact with cancer cells in many solid tumors (e.g. breast cancer), and the relationship between adipocyte-secreted molecules in cancer progression is now recognized since adipocyte-secreted molecules can promote cancer cell proliferation, angiogenesis, and invasion.^93,94 Signaling pathways related to carcinogenesis could be regulated by the adipokines secreted by adjacent adipocytes and recognized by specific receptors in tumor cell surface, in fact over 600 adipokines have now been identified.^95,96 For instance, PI3K/AKT, MAPK/ERK and STAT3 signaling pathways could be activated selectively by leptin, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), and resistin, promoting cell survival and proliferation.^97–101 Leptin, HGF, and VEGF-A produced by adipocytes had also been described as implicated in angiogenesis.^102–104 Moreover, leptin has been described as exerting a pro-proliferative effect on cancer cells, while adiponectin acts as a pro-apoptotic factor. The remodeling of the extracellular matrix of the surrounding adjacent tumor area could also be associated with adipocytes since they release collagen VI and MMP11 promoting cancer invasion.^105–107

In many cancer contexts, lipid metabolism has been already identified as determinant and as a major contributing factor for metabolic fitness of cancer cells. As mentioned above, cancer cells uptake metabolic substrates as fatty acids to support the rapid growth and provide energy necessary for biomass synthesis, migration, and invasion.⁴³ In ovarian cancer cell lines, adipocytes promote homing, migration, and invasion,¹¹³ while in breast cancer cell lines, lipids exert growth-promoting effect and enhance tumor cell features (e.g. migration and invasion).^{4,97,111,114–120} In prostate cancer, a functional relationship between bone marrow adiposity and metastasis has been also established.¹²¹

At the molecular level, fatty acids appear as one of the major contributors to the acetyl-CoA pool used in TCA cycle and support oxidative phosphorylation and consequently tumor growth.¹²² Balaban et al.⁴ reported that human primary adipocytes and mouse 3T3-derived adipocytes provide substrates to support the metabolic needs of breast cancer cell lines, concomitant with increased fatty acid storage and oxidation (β-oxidation). For instance, the metastatic potential of human oral cancer cells is linked to higher levels of fatty acid transporter (CD36) and increased expression of genes involved in β-oxidation, lipid biosynthesis, and intracellular lipid storage.¹²² In breast cancer, it occurs due to an increase in gene expression of a rate-limiting enzyme (carnitine palmitoyltransferase 1 (CPT1)) in β-oxidation.^4,123 Cancer cells adapted to hypoxic and acidic environment present an increase in lipoprotein uptake, accumulated as lipid droplets, and β-oxidation-derived acetyl-CoA to fuel TCA.^123–127 It is noteworthy that inhibition of fatty acid uptake and/or metabolic-related pathways has gained attention currently as a putative adjuvant therapy to treat cancer.

CAAs play a role in cancer metabolic fitness

As previously stated, adipocytes are in a close contact with cancer cells in many solid and hematological tumors, and not only adipocytes are able to modulate and modify cancer cell behavior but also reciprocal effects of cancer cells on adipocytes have been reported (Figure 4). Adipocytes near the tumor site, the CAAs, present phenotypical changes and alter biological profile to support cancer demands.^{97,105,131,132} CAA delipidation is related to a reduction in the expression of adipocyte differentiation markers (e.g. LIPE and FABP4) and in the triacyl glycerol (TAG) content.^97,133 Moreover, human pre-adipocytes collected from mammary fat adjacent to malignant breast tumors have decreased differentiation capacity and lipid droplet formation, compared to pre-adipocytes adjacent to benign tumors.¹³³

Figure 4.

In cancer, the crosstalk between adipocytes, cancer cells, and cancer-associated adipocytes (CAAs) encourages tumor growth and metastasis. The close contact between tumor cells with adipocytes favor tumor progression through the supply of metabolic fuels and/or signaling mediators, driving the proliferation and invasion of tumor cells through fatty acid (FA) accumulation and fatty acids-related pathway activation.^43,93,97,128 During carcinogenesis, adjacent adipocytes, CAA, undergo de-differentiation and exhibit delipidation, acquiring a fibroblast-like morphology concomitant with increased cancer cell aggressiveness.^129,130 Adipocytes and CAA act as active players in the metabolic dynamic interplay between cancer and stromal cells through the production of hormones, growth factors, cytokines, adipokines, and metabolic substrates (fatty acids (FA)).^{97,105,109,128,131} A better knowledge of the cellular and molecular mechanisms involved in the crosstalk between adipocytes, cancer cells, and CAA may provide new insights and putative targets for the improvement of therapeutic strategies in cancer treatment.

In vitro and in vivo data suggest that during CAAs’ morphological changes, adipocytes decrease in cell number and size due to loss of their lipid content, exhibit fibroblast-like morphology, and have an altered secretome, inducing pro-tumor microenvironment remodeling and tumor progression.^97,129,132 CAAs display enhanced secretion of fibronectin and collagen I, increased migratory/invasive abilities, and increased expression of the CAF marker FSP-1. In breast cancer, this multi-step process is dependent on the activation of Wnt/β-catenin pathway in response to Wnt3A secreted by cancer cells.¹²⁹ The induction of adipocyte de-differentiation by cancer cells is related to an increase in gene expression of adipokines and adipocytokines (tumor necrosis factor (TNF), IL-6, and IL1B) and genes involved in the remodeling of ECM genes (CCL2, CCL5, LEP, MMP11, and SERPINE1).^97,133–135 Desmoplasia, which is the deposition of a fibrotic tissue surrounding cancer cells and is quite frequent in breast cancer,¹³⁶ can also be sustained by this de-differentiation process of adipocytes, resembling fibrotic tissue at the morphological and molecular levels. Picon-Ruiz et al.¹³⁴ reported a model in which cancer cell invasion into local fat establishes feed-forward loops to activate Src oncogene and maintain pro-inflammatory cytokine production favoring tumor-initiating cell abundance and metastatic progression.

This inflammatory environment can be responsible for the cachexia (loss of muscle and adipose tissues) observed in cancer patients.¹³⁷ However, more studies to clarify key molecular players in the crosstalk of adipocytes and cancer cells are needed.

Strengthening the importance of lipid metabolism in cancer context, several studies had proved that cancer cells itself are able to synthesize and metabolize lipids to support their growth and metastatic fate. For instance, the grade of breast cancer and poor prognosis has been correlated to increased levels of stearoyl-CoA desaturase (SCD) expression, a final key enzyme in newly synthesized monounsaturated fatty acids.¹³⁸ Also, a variety of studies linked the activity of fatty acid synthetase (FASN) with cancer progression. FASN inhibition induces endoplasmic reticulum stress in cancer cells enhancing cell death; in breast and prostate cancer, targeting FASN effectively suppresses growth and induces apoptosis in vitro and in vivo.^139–141 FASN overexpression was also linked to drug resistance in breast cancer cells¹⁴² and more recently in a group of breast cancer patients has been proposed as putative beneficiaries of a therapy with FASN inhibitors.¹⁴³

Adipocytes can be an active player in cancer progression and resistance to conventional treatment

The mechanisms underlying the obesity–cancer link are not fully understood. Recent evidences had shown the relevance of adipose tissue in cancer progression and outcome.^91,92 For instance, in breast cancer scenario, it demonstrated, independent of a menopausal status, a correlation between lower survival and obesity.¹⁴⁴ In leukemia, poorer survival was described for obese patients comparing to patients within a normal range of weight.^145,146

In the literature, most of the in vitro and in vivo studies do not consider the relevance of obesity in adipocyte relationship with cancer cells. Balaban et al.⁴ reported that breast cancer cell lines co-cultured with adipocytes derived from obese women had an increased growth rate and migration properties compared to the effects observed in co-culture with adipocytes from normal individuals.

Adipocytes derived from obese individuals release two-fold higher IGF-1 levels than adipocytes from thin individuals; this may contribute to cancer growth in obese individuals since proliferation is enhanced in breast cancer cells exposed to obese adipocyte-conditioned media.⁴ Moreover, Santander et al.¹¹⁹ demonstrated in vivo that mammary tumors from obese mice had higher tumor volume than tumors from skinny mice.

Clinically, obese women display poor prognosis due to an increased resistance to conventional chemotherapy, but the mechanisms of resistance are not well known. Lehrmann et al.¹⁴⁷ demonstrated that in breast cancer cell lines, the sensitivity to docetaxel in vitro was decreased in the presence of serum from obese patients. In vivo models of leukemia also showed that adipose tissue niches permit a metabolic adaptation of cancer cells allowing chemotherapy evasion.¹ New knowledge about the epidemiological, clinical, and molecular data of obese patients is needed for a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying chemoresistance in these patients.

Monocytes/macrophages

Monocytes and macrophages belong to the myeloid lineage of leukocytes. Macrophages result from the differentiation, in tissues, of extravasating monocytes and undergo specific differentiation according to the local tissue microenvironment.^148–150 These cells are mostly known by playing a critical role in injury emergence and resolution of infection. Also, they are involved in the maintenance of tissue homeostasis through remodeling and repair, and they are characterized by the ability to engulf invading pathogens, dying/dead cells, or cell debris. They also secrete a wide array of immunomodulatory cytokines as well as present antigens.^148,149,151

Macrophages undergo specific differentiation according to the local tissue. Two extreme stages of polarization have been described, M1 and M2. M1 macrophages are considered as potent producers of pro-inflammatory cytokines and killers of microorganisms and tumor cells, whereas M2 cells are more prone to scavenging debris and promoting angiogenesis, tissue remodeling, and repair.^152,153

TAMs have a role in cancer promotion and progression

TAMs seem to have acquired features shared by M2 macrophages (Figure 5). However, their phenotypic plasticity (i.e. TAMs comprise several subpopulations) makes the M1/M2 nomenclature a not entirely adequate method for classifying TAMs.^172,173

Figure 5.

Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) are present as tumor aiders in all traits of cancer: initial oncogenic events, tumor growth, vascularization, migration, and metastasis. (a) Immunoediting and inflammation seem to mark the initiation of cancer. A malignancy-oriented microenvironment appears to contribute to TAMs “re-education”^154,155 and includes the secretion, by tumor cells, of a cytokine mix that includes TGF-β1, acting here as a strong immune suppressor,^156–158 and CSF-1, which blocks the maturation of monocytes into dendritic cells.¹⁵⁹ TAMs themselves become able to suppress other immune cells intervention by releasing, namely, IL-10¹⁶⁰ and arginase I.^161–163 Similarly, an inflammatory milieu is always present in the initiation of the tumor. This microenvironment is achieved by the secretion by TAMs of reactive oxygen (ROS) and nitrogen species (NOS) that will generate mutations^154,164,165 and also some cytokines associated to mutagenic events, including TNF-α and macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF).¹⁶⁶ (b) For the further events, inducers of a metastatic behavior in the tumor, a paracrine interaction between monocytes/macrophages and cancer cells is essential. One of those mechanisms involves the release of CSF-1 by tumor cells, which attracts monocytes into the tumor, which, in turn, secretes EGF, whose signaling promotes tumor cells migration.^167–169 TAMs-derived TNF-α is another booster of the metastatic behavior as inducing MIF and extracellular matrix metalloproteinase inducer (EMMRIPN). This milieu still includes cancer cells–derived IL-4, CXCL12, FGF, HG, PDGF and TAMs-derived TGF-β,^149,167,170 MMPs (MMP-2, MMP-7, MMP-9, and MMP-19), urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA), and IL-6, which act on ECM proteolysis, facilitating, thus, tumor cell migration and escape and additionally the release of eventual important mediators of tumor spreading.^152,167,171

Hematopoietic cells are recruited to most solid tumors, and TAMs can abundantly populate the tumor mass.^154,155 Strikingly, the vast majority of the studies on the subject suggest a causal relationship between macrophage high density and poor disease prognosis.^174–176

TAMs’ influence on cancer is present in all traits of carcinogenesis (Figure 5). These cells participate in tumor initiation, growth, vascularization, and metastasis. Each trait seems to be affected by a particular subpopulation, displaying a more suitable phenotype for each function and recruited to strategic regions of the neoplasm, according to the chemokine expression pattern in microenvironment.¹⁷³

Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2 (CCL2)/C-C motif receptor 2 (CCR2) is the main determinant of monocyte recruitment into tumors. CCL2 (also known as monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)-1) expression has been positively associated with TAM accumulation in a wide panel of malignancies, including breast, ovarian, lung, glial cancers, and leukemia.^{173,177–180} Indeed, the induction of CCL2 expression in melanoma has resulted in more accumulation of TAMs.¹⁸¹ In accordance, CCL2/CCR2 axis interruption has resulted in a reduced recruitment of monocytes/macrophages and a consequent decline in tumor burden.^182,183

As mentioned, colony stimulating factor-1 (CSF-1) is the major lineage regulator for macrophages.^184,185 This cytokine, whose effect is mediated by CSF-1 tyrosine kinase receptor (CSF-1R), is overexpressed by tumor cells in several neoplastic contexts, including breast, ovarian, prostate, and colorectal cancer,^185–190 and has been associated with TAM accumulation, more aggressive malignancies, and consequent poor prognosis. The ablation of CSF-1/CSF-1R interaction, either by genetic or therapeutic approaches, has resulted in the reduction of monocyte/macrophage recruitment or function and subsequent impairment of tumor growth and spread. On the contrary, the induction of CSF-1 overexpression has been shown to accelerate tumor progression.¹⁸⁷ TAMs have still been identified as contributors to tumor progression by inducing COX-2 as a consequence of IL1β-mediated stimulation of ROS-Src-MAPK signaling.¹⁹¹

TAMs—metabolic adjustment in cancer

The role of TAMs in the metabolic adjustment of tumor cells themselves, so far, seems to be mostly related to the angiogenic switch: as a tumor becomes larger, its metabolic demands increase, which requires a more developed vascular structure.^192–194 This transition is simulated by TAMs, which respond to hypoxia and promote vascularization through several mechanisms.

Although little is known about the metabolic reprogramming of monocytes/macrophages in the context of carcinogenesis (Figure 6), this is another feature underlying their role as cancer “helpers.”¹⁹⁵ TAMs seem to show, generally, increased aerobic glycolysis¹⁹⁶ via Akt/mTOR and HIF-1α stabilization.^197–199 An enhanced fatty acid biosynthesis and uptake is another metabolic adjustment that may explain an enhanced pro-inflammatory, pro-tumorigenic profile of TAMs.^197,200,201 An increase in the expression of genes involved in glutamate transport and metabolism was observed in TAMs isolated from tumors.²⁰² In addition, the overexpression of arginase 1 (ARG 1) in TAMs seems to be associated to an enhancement of tumor cell proliferation,²⁰³ probably via ARG1-dependent polyamine synthesis pathway, while suppressing tumor cytotoxicity by reducing nitric oxide production.^203,204

Figure 6.

Tumor-associated macrophage (TAM) metabolic remodeling in cancer. TAMs, in general, show increased aerobic glycolysis¹⁹⁶ via Akt/mTOR and HIF-1α stabilization,^197–199 enhanced FA biosynthesis and uptake,^197,200,201 and overexpression of genes involved in glutamate transport and metabolism²⁰² and arginase 1 (ARG 1).^203,204 These metabolic features may also explain the pro-inflammatory and pro-tumorigenic profile of TAMs.

Learning more about the interaction between TAMs and cancer metabolism should be a challenge for future research.

Highlights

Cancer survival and progression are not exclusively dependent on the cancer cells. In fact, carcinogenesis depends on the contribution of several cellular and molecular components of the tumor microenvironment, being non-cancerous stromal cells crucial peons.

Stromal non-cancerous cells are pivotal players in the maintenance of the network that sustains and feeds cancer cells. This network is composed of metabolic and signaling pathways needed to accomplish the high demanding of energy and biomass, undoubtedly essential for cancer initiation and progression. The destabilization of this equilibrium can be a suitable strategy to define new and powerful therapeutic approaches. The effective abrogation of the metabolic crosstalk is for sure a challenging field of cancer research.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported through iNOVA4Health—UID/Multi/04462/2013, a program financially supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT; PhD ProRegeM program, PD/BD/128337/2017)/Ministério da Educação e Ciência through national funds and co-funded by FEDER under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement.

References

Woolthuis

Stranahan

Park

et al . Leukemic stem cells evade chemotherapy by metabolic adaptation to an adipose tissue niche. Cell Stem Cell 2016; 19: 23–37.

Mao

Keller

Garfield

et al . Stromal cells in tumor microenvironment and breast cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2013; 32: 303–315.

Kundu

Too sweet for autophagy: hexokinase inhibition of mTORC1 activates autophagy. Mol Cell 2014; 53(4): 517–518.

Balaban

Shearer

Lee

et al . Adipocyte lipolysis links obesity to breast cancer growth: adipocyte-derived fatty acids drive breast cancer cell proliferation and migration. Cancer Metab 2017; 5: 1.

Augsten

Cancer-associated fibroblasts as another polarized cell type of the tumor microenvironment. Front Oncol 2014; 4: 62.

Tchou

Kossenkov

Chang

et al . Human breast cancer associated fibroblasts exhibit subtype specific gene expression profiles. BMC Med Genomics 2012; 5: 39.

Hwang

Moore

Arumugam

et al . Cancer-associated stromal fibroblasts promote pancreatic tumor progression. Cancer Res 2008; 68: 918–926.

Lin

Flomenberg

et al . Glutamine fuels a vicious cycle of autophagy in the tumor stroma and oxidative mitochondrial metabolism in epithelial cancer cells: implications for preventing chemotherapy resistance. Cancer Biol Ther 2011; 12: 1085–1097.

Nakagawa

Liyanarachchi

Davuluri

et al . Role of cancer-associated stromal fibroblasts in metastatic colon cancer to the liver and their expression profiles. Oncogene 2004; 23: 7366–7377.

10.

Pavlides

Whitaker-Menezes

Castello-Cros

et al . The reverse Warburg effect: aerobic glycolysis in cancer associated fibroblasts and the tumor stroma. Cell Cycle 2009; 8: 3984–4001.

11.

Rucki

Foley

Zhang

et al . Heterogeneous stromal signaling within the tumor microenvironment controls the metastasis of pancreatic cancer. Cancer Res 2017; 77: 41–52.

12.

Vangapandu

Ayres

Bristow

et al . The stromal microenvironment modulates mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation in chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells. Neoplasia 2017; 19: 762–771.

13.

Koczula

Ludwig

Hayden

et al . Metabolic plasticity in CLL: adaptation to the hypoxic niche. Leukemia 2016; 30: 65–73.

14.

Bhome

Bullock

Al Saihati

et al . A top-down view of the tumor microenvironment: structure, cells and signaling. Front Cell Dev Biol 2015; 3: 33.

15.

Vannucci

Stroma as an active player in the development of the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Microenviron 2015; 8: 159–166.

16.

Witz

IP.

The tumor microenvironment: the making of a paradigm. Cancer Microenviron 2009; 2: 9–17.

17.

Kalluri

The biology and function of fibroblasts in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2016; 16: 582–598.

18.

Martinez-Outschoorn

Sotgia

Lisanti

MP.

Tumor microenvironment and metabolic synergy in breast cancers: critical importance of mitochondrial fuels and function. Semin Oncol Elsevier 2014; 41: 195–216.

19.

Darby

Laverdet

Bonté

et al . Fibroblasts and myofibroblasts in wound healing. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol 2014; 7: 301–311.

20.

Pavlides

Vera

Gandara

et al . Warburg meets autophagy: cancer-associated fibroblasts accelerate tumor growth and metastasis via oxidative stress, mitophagy, and aerobic glycolysis. Antioxid Redox Signal 2012; 16: 1264–1284.

21.

Song

Ott

HC.

Organ engineering based on decellularized matrix scaffolds. Trends Mol Med 2011; 17: 424–432.

22.

Dvorak

HF.

Tumors, wounds that do not heal: similarities between tumor stroma generation and wound healing. N Engl J Med 1986; 315: 1650–1659.

23.

Balliet

Capparelli

Guido

et al . Mitochondrial oxidative stress in cancer-associated fibroblasts drives lactate production, promoting breast cancer tumor growth: understanding the aging and cancer connection. Cell Cycle 2011; 10: 4065–4073.

24.

Yamaguchi

Sakai

Direct interaction between carcinoma cells and cancer associated fibroblasts for the regulation of cancer invasion. Cancers (Basel) 2015; 7: 2054–2062.

25.

Orimo

Gupta

Sgroi

et al . Stromal fibroblasts present in invasive human breast carcinomas promote tumor growth and angiogenesis through elevated SDF-1/CXCL12 secretion. Cell 2005; 121: 335–348.

26.

Erez

Glanz

Raz

et al . Cancer associated fibroblasts express pro-inflammatory factors in human breast and ovarian tumors. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2013; 437: 397–402.

27.

Orimo

Weinberg

RA.

Stromal fibroblasts in cancer: a novel tumor-promoting cell type. Cell Cycle 2006; 5: 1597–1601.

28.

Cohen

Shani

Raz

et al . Fibroblasts drive an immunosuppressive and growth-promoting microenvironment in breast cancer via secretion of Chitinase 3-like 1. Nat Publ Gr 2017; 36: 4457–4468.

29.

Bruzzese

Hagglof

Leone

et al . Local and systemic protumorigenic effects of cancer-associated fibroblast-derived GDF15. Cancer Res 2014; 74: 3408–3417.

30.

Attekum

van Eric

EPKA

. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells are active participants in microenvironmental cross-talk. Haematologica 2017; 102: 1469–1476.

31.

Ding

Knox

Tschumper

et al . Platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF)-PDGF receptor interaction activates bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells derived from chronic lymphocytic leukemia: implications for an angiogenic switch. Blood 2010; 116: 2984–2993.

32.

Valsecchi

Coltella

Belloni

et al . HIF-1α regulates the interaction of chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells with the tumor microenvironment. Blood 2016; 127: 1987–1997.

33.

Busch

Andersson

Bom

et al . Cellular organization and molecular differentiation model of breast cancer-associated fibroblasts. Mol Cancer 2017; 16: 73.

34.

Martinez-Outschoorn

Trimmer

Lin

et al . Autophagy in cancer associated fibroblasts promotes tumor cell survival: role of hypoxia, HIF1 induction and NFkappaB activation in the tumor stromal microenvironment. Cell Cycle 2010; 9: 3515–3533.

35.

Liu

F-L

E-P

Yang

et al . Autophagy is involved in TGF-β1-induced protective mechanisms and formation of cancer-associated fibroblasts phenotype in tumor microenvironment. Oncotarget 2016; 7: 4122–4141.

36.

Wang

Xue

Zhang

et al . Autophagy protects ovarian cancer-associated fibroblasts against oxidative stress. Cell Cycle 2016; 15: 1376–1385.

37.

Valencia

Kim

Abu-Baker

et al . Metabolic reprogramming of stromal fibroblasts through p62-mTORC1 signaling promotes inflammation and tumorigenesis. Cancer Cell 2014; 26: 121–135.

38.

Zhang

Chen

et al . Cancer-associated fibroblasts provide a suitable microenvironment for tumor development and progression in oral tongue squamous cancer. J Transl Med 2015; 13: 198.

39.

Ando

Uehara

Kogure

et al . Interleukin 6 enhances glycolysis through expression of the glycolytic enzymes hexokinase 2 and 6-phosphofructo-2-kinase/fructose-2,6-bisphosphatase-3. J Nippon Med Sch 2010; 77: 97–105.

40.

Martinez-Outschoorn

Lin

Trimmer

et al . Cancer cells metabolically “fertilize” the tumor microenvironment with hydrogen peroxide, driving the Warburg effect: implications for PET imaging of human tumors. Cell Cycle 2011; 10: 2504–2520.

41.

Zhang

Wang

Shi

et al . Metabolic reprogramming of cancer-associated fibroblasts by IDH3alpha downregulation. Cell Rep 2015; 10: 1335–1348.

42.

Marchiq

Pouysségur

Hypoxia, cancer metabolism and the therapeutic benefit of targeting lactate/H+ symporters. J Mol Med 2016; 94: 155–171.

43.

Martinez-Outschoorn

Lisanti

Sotgia

Catabolic cancer-associated fibroblasts transfer energy and biomass to anabolic cancer cells, fueling tumor growth. Semin Cancer Biol 2014; 25: 47–60.

44.

Choi

SYC

Collins

Gout

et al . Cancer-generated lactic acid: a regulatory, immunosuppressive metabolite? J Pathol 2013; 230: 350–355.

45.

Hanahan

Weinberg

. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144: 646–674.

46.

Serpa

Dias

Metabolic cues from the microenvironment act as a major selective factor for cancer progression and metastases formation. Cell Cycle 2011; 10: 180–181.

47.

Whitaker-Menezes

Martinez-Outschoorn

Flomenberg

et al . Hyperactivation of oxidative mitochondrial metabolism in epithelial cancer cells in situ: visualizing the therapeutic effects of metformin in tumor tissue. Cell Cycle 2011; 10: 4047–4064.

48.

Škrtić

Sriskanthadevan

Jhas

et al . Inhibition of mitochondrial translation as a therapeutic strategy for human acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer Cell 2011; 20: 674–688.

49.

Lee

Hong

et al . Aberrant cell proliferation by enhanced mitochondrial biogenesis via mtTFA in arsenical skin cancers. Am J Pathol 2011; 178: 2066–2076.

50.

Martinez-Outschoorn

Pavlides

Sotgia

et al . Mitochondrial biogenesis drives tumor cell proliferation. Am J Pathol 2011; 178: 1949–1952.

51.

Szabo

Coletta

Chao

et al . Tumor-derived hydrogen sulfide, produced by cystathionine-β-synthase, stimulates bioenergetics, cell proliferation, and angiogenesis in colon cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013; 110: 12474–12479.

52.

Pavlova

Thompson

CB.

The emerging hallmarks of cancer metabolism. Cell Metab 2016; 23: 27–47.

53.

Witkiewicz

Whitaker-Menezes

Dasgupta

et al . Using the “reverse Warburg effect” to identify high-risk breast cancer patients: stromal MCT4 predicts poor clinical outcome in triple-negative breast cancers. Cell Cycle 2012; 11: 1108–1117.

54.

Knudsen

Balaji

Freinkman

et al . Unique metabolic features of pancreatic cancer stroma: relevance to the tumor compartment, prognosis, and invasive potential. Oncotarget 2016; 7: 78396–78411.

55.

Yang

Achreja

Yeung

et al . Targeting stromal glutamine synthetase in tumors disrupts tumor microenvironment-regulated cancer cell growth. Cell Metab 2016; 24: 685–700.

56.

Fiaschi

Marini

Giannoni

et al . Reciprocal metabolic reprogramming through lactate shuttle coordinately influences tumor-stroma interplay. Cancer Res 2012; 72: 5130–5140.

57.

Pértega-Gomes

Vizcaíno

Attig

et al . A lactate shuttle system between tumour and stromal cells is associated with poor prognosis in prostate cancer. BMC Cancer 2014; 14: 352.

58.

Whitaker-Menezes

Martinez-Outschoorn

Lin

et al . Evidence for a stromal-epithelial “lactate shuttle” in human tumors: MCT4 is a marker of oxidative stress in cancer-associated fibroblasts. Cell Cycle 2011; 10: 1772–1783.

59.

Shan

Chen

et al . Cancer-associated fibroblasts enhance pancreatic cancer cell invasion by remodeling the metabolic conversion mechanism. Oncol Rep 2017; 37: 1971–1979.

60.

Yang

Hou

et al . Cytoplasmic GPER translocation in cancer-associated fibroblasts mediates cAMP/PKA/CREB/glycolytic axis to confer tumor cells with multidrug resistance. Oncogene 2017; 36: 2131–2145.

61.

Reynolds

Lane

Robertson

et al . Control of glutamine metabolism by the tumor suppressor Rb. Oncogene 2013; 33: 556–566.

62.

Matés

Segura

Martín-Rufián

et al . Glutaminase isoenzymes as key regulators in metabolic and oxidative stress against cancer. Curr Mol Med 2013; 13: 514–534.

63.

Wise

Thompson

CB.

Glutamine addiction: a new therapeutic target in cancer. Trends Biochem Sci 2010; 35: 427–433.

64.

Eng

Lucas

et al . Ammonia derived from glutaminolysis is a diffusible regulator of autophagy. Sci Signal 2010; 3: ra31

65.

Lukey

Wilson

Cerione

RA.

Therapeutic strategies impacting cancer cell glutamine metabolism. Future Med Chem 2013; 5: 1685–1700.

66.

Chen

Cui

Targeting glutamine induces apoptosis: a cancer therapy approach. Int J Mol Sci 2015; 16: 22830–22855.

67.

Huang

Choi

Chen

et al . A proposed role for glutamine in cancer cell growth through acid resistance. Cell Res 2013; 23: 724–727.

68.

Cheong

Lindsten

et al . Ammonia-induced autophagy is independent of ULK1/ULK2 kinases. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2011; 108: 11121–11126.

69.

Santi

Caselli

Ranaldi

et al . Cancer associated fibroblasts transfer lipids and proteins to cancer cells through cargo vesicles supporting tumor growth. Biochim Biophys Acta - Mol Cell Res 2015; 1853: 3211–3223.

70.

Lopes-Coelho

André

Félix

et al . Breast cancer metabolic cross-talk: fibroblasts are hubs and breast cancer cells are gatherers of lipids. Mol Cell Endocrinol. Epub ahead of print 22 January 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.mce.2017.01.031.

71.

New

Arnold

Ananth

et al . Secretory autophagy in tumor associated fibroblasts promotes head and neck squamous cell carcinoma progression and emerges as a novel therapeutic target. In: Proceedings of the American Association for cancer research annual meeting 2017, Washington, DC, 1–5 April 2017.

72.

Wang

Zhang

Huang

et al . Cancer-associated fibroblasts autophagy enhances progression of triple-negative breast cancer cells. Med Sci Monit 2017; 23: 3904–3912.

73.

Liu

YHY

. PDK1 promotes tumor cell proliferation and migration by enhancing the Warburg effect in non-small cell lung cancer. Oncol Rep 2017; 37: 193–200.

74.

Zhao

Yang

Baddour

et al . Tumor microenvironment derived exosomes pleiotropically modulate cancer cell metabolism. Elife 2016; 5: e10250.

75.

Thoen

LFR

Guimarães

ELM

Dollé

et al . A role for autophagy during hepatic stellate cell activation. J Hepatol 2011; 55: 1353–1360.

76.

Guido

Whitaker-Menezes

Lin

et al . Mitochondrial fission induces glycolytic reprogramming in cancer-associated myofibroblasts, driving stromal lactate production, and early tumor growth. Oncotarget 2012; 3: 798–810.

77.

WKK

Coffelt

Cho

et al . The autophagic paradox in cancer therapy. Oncogene 2012; 31: 939–953.

78.

Lock

Roy

Kenific

et al . Autophagy facilitates glycolysis during Ras-mediated oncogenic transformation. Mol Biol Cell 2011; 22: 165–178.

79.

Duan

Perez

Davaadelger

et al . P53-regulated autophagy is controlled by glycolysis and determines cell fate. Oncotarget 2015; 6: 23135–23156.

80.

Zhao

X-L

Lin

Jiang

et al . HMGB1 released by autophagic cancer-associated fibroblasts maintains the stemness of luminal breast cancer cells. J Pathol 2017;243: 376–389.

81.

Lee

Yakubov

Ivan

et al . Tissue transglutaminase activates cancer-associated fibroblasts and contributes to gemcitabine resistance in pancreatic cancer. Neoplasia (United States) 2016; 18: 689–698.

82.

Sousa

Biancur

Wang

et al . Pancreatic stellate cells support tumour metabolism through autophagic alanine secretion. Nature 2016; 536: 479–483.

83.

Durán

MacKenzie

Boulahbel

et al . HIF-independent role of prolyl hydroxylases in the cellular response to amino acids. Oncogene 2013; 32: 4549–4556.

84.

Singh

Kaushik

Wang

et al . Autophagy regulates lipid metabolism. Nature 2009;458: 1131–1135.

85.

De Jong

Shanahan

S-L

Brand

et al . Pancreatic cancer cell growth requires lipids released by tumor-induced stroma autophagy. In: Proceedings of the American Association for cancer research annual meeting 2017, Washington, DC, 1–5 April 2017, p. 77. Philadelphia, PA: AACR.

86.

Cypess

Lehman

Williams

et al . Identification and importance of brown adipose tissue in adult humans. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1509–1517.

87.

van Marken Lichtenbelt

Vanhommerig

Smulders

et al . Cold-activated brown adipose tissue in healthy men. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1500–1508.

88.

Virtanen

Lidell

Orava

et al . Functional brown adipose tissue in healthy adults. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1518–1525.

89.

Suga

Matsumoto

Inoue

et al . Numerical measurement of viable and nonviable adipocytes and other cellular components in aspirated fat tissue. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122: 103–114.

90.

Eto

Suga

Matsumoto

et al . Characterization of structure and cellular components of aspirated and excised adipose tissue. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124: 1087–1097.

91.

Goodwin

Chlebowski

RT.

Obesity and cancer: insights for clinicians. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 4197–4202.

92.

Taubes

Unraveling the obesity-cancer connection. Science 2012; 335: 28–32.

93.

Wang

Lehuédé

Laurent

et al . Adipose tissue and breast epithelial cells: a dangerous dynamic duo in breast cancer. Cancer Lett 2012; 324: 142–151.

94.

Hovey

McFadden

Akers

RM.

Regulation of mammary gland growth and morphogenesis by the mammary fat pad: a species comparison. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 1999; 4: 53–68.

95.

Mistry

Digby

Chen

et al . The regulation of adiponectin receptors in human prostate cancer cell lines. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2006; 348: 832–838.

96.

Ishikawa

Kitayama

Nagawa

Enhanced expression of leptin and leptin receptor (OB-R) in human breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10: 4325–4331.

97.

Dirat

Bochet

Dabek

et al . Cancer-associated adipocytes exhibit an activated phenotype and contribute to breast cancer invasion. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 2455–2465.

98.

Garofalo

Surmacz

Leptin and cancer. J Cell Physiol 2006; 207: 12–22.

99.

Dalamaga

Diakopoulos

Mantzoros

CS.

The role of adiponectin in cancer: a review of current evidence. Endocr Rev 2012; 33: 547–594.

100.

Pollak

Insulin and insulin-like growth factor signalling in neoplasia. Nat Rev Cancer 2008; 8: 915–928.

101.

Heldring

Pike

Andersson

et al . Estrogen receptors: how do they signal and what are their targets. Physiol Rev 2007; 87: 905–931.

102.

Bougaret

Delort

Billard

et al . Supernatants of adipocytes from obese versus normal weight women and breast cancer cells: in vitro impact on angiogenesis. J Cell Physiol 2017; 232: 1808–1816.

103.

Mick

Wang

McCormick

White adipocyte vascular endothelial growth factor: regulation by insulin. Endocrinology 2002; 143: 948–953.

104.

Gonzalez-Perez

Lanier

Newman

Leptin’s pro-angiogenic signature in breast cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2013; 5: 1140–1162.

105.

Andarawewa

Motrescu

Chenard

et al . Stromelysin-3 is a potent negative regulator of adipogenesis participating to cancer cell-adipocyte interaction/crosstalk at the tumor invasive front. Cancer Res 2005; 65: 10862–10871.

106.

Chen

Cescon

Bonaldo

Collagen VI in cancer and its biological mechanisms. Trends Mol Med 2013; 19: 410–417.

107.

Iyengar

Espina

Williams

et al . Adipocyte-derived collagen VI affects early mammary tumor progression in vivo, demonstrating a critical interaction in the tumor/stroma microenvironment. J Clin Invest 2005; 115: 1163–1176.

108.

Zhong

Krawczyk

Chaerkady

et al . Temporal profiling of the secretome during adipogenesis in humans. J Proteome Res 2010; 9: 5228–5238.

109.

Wei

Pang

et al . Leptin promotes epithelial-mesenchymal transition of breast cancer via the upregulation of pyruvate kinase M2. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2016; 35: 166.

110.

Yin

Wang

Zhang

et al . Molecular mechanisms involved in the growth stimulation of breast cancer cells by leptin. Cancer Res 2004; 64: 5870–5875.

111.

D’Esposito

Passaretti

Hammarstedt

et al . Adipocyte-released insulin-like growth factor-1 is regulated by glucose and fatty acids and controls breast cancer cell growth in vitro. Diabetologia 2012; 55: 2811–2822.

112.

Grossmann

Nkhata

Mizuno

et al . Effects of adiponectin on breast cancer cell growth and signaling. Br J Cancer 2008; 98: 370–379.

113.

Nieman

Kenny

Penicka

et al . Adipocytes promote ovarian cancer metastasis and provide energy for rapid tumor growth. Nat Med 2011; 17: 1498–1503.

114.

Manabe

Toda

Miyazaki

et al . Mature adipocytes, but not preadipocytes, promote the growth of breast carcinoma cells in collagen gel matrix culture through cancer-stromal cell interactions. J Pathol 2003; 201: 221–228.

115.

Carter

Church

FC.

Mature breast adipocytes promote breast cancer cell motility. Exp Mol Pathol 2012; 92: 312–317.

116.

Grisouard

Dembinski

Mayer

et al . Targeting AMP-activated protein kinase in adipocytes to modulate obesity-related adipokine production associated with insulin resistance and breast cancer cell proliferation. Diabetol Metab Syndr 2011; 3: 16.

117.

Shpilberg

Connor

Riddell

MC.

The direct and indirect effects of corticosterone and primary adipose tissue on MCF7 breast cancer cell cycle progression. Horm Mol Biol Clin Investig 2015; 22: 91–100.

118.

Wang

Gao

Meng

et al . Human adipocytes stimulate invasion of breast cancer MCF-7 cells by secreting IGFBP-2. PLoS ONE 2015; 10: 1–17.

119.

Santander

Lopez-Ocejo

Casas

et al . Paracrine interactions between adipocytes and tumor cells recruit and modify macrophages to the mammary tumor microenvironment: the role of obesity and inflammation in breast adipose tissue. Cancers (Basel) 2015; 7: 143–178.

120.

Drew

Hamidi

Zhou

et al . Estrogen receptor (er)α-regulated lipocalin 2 expression in adipose tissue links obesity with breast cancer progression. J Biol Chem 2015; 290: 5566–5581.

121.

Herroon

Rajagurubandara

Hardaway

et al . Bone marrow adipocytes promote tumor growth in bone via FABP4-dependent mechanisms. Oncotarget 2013; 4: 2108–2123.

122.

Corbet

Feron

Cancer cell metabolism and mitochondria: nutrient plasticity for TCA cycle fueling. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 2017; 1868: 7–15.

123.

Wang

Attané

Milhas

et al . Mammary adipocytes stimulate breast cancer invasion through metabolic remodeling of tumor cells. JCI Insight 2017; 2: e87489.

124.

Menard

Christianson

Kucharzewska

et al . Metastasis stimulation by hypoxia and acidosis-induced extracellular lipid uptake is mediated by proteoglycan-dependent endocytosis. Cancer Res 2016; 76: 4828–4840.

125.

Corbet

Pinto

Martherus

et al . Acidosis drives the reprogramming of fatty acid metabolism in cancer cells through changes in mitochondrial and histone acetylation. Cell Metab 2016; 24: 311–323.

126.

Birsoy

Wang

Possemato

et al . MCT1-mediated transport of a toxic molecule is an effective strategy for targeting glycolytic tumors. Nat Genet 2017; 45: 104–108.

127.

Wen

Y-A

Xing

Harris

et al . Adipocytes activate mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation and autophagy to promote tumor growth in colon cancer. Cell Death Dis 2017; 8: e2593.

128.

Tan

Buache

Chenard

M-P

et al . Adipocyte is a non-trivial, dynamic partner of breast cancer cells. Int J Dev Biol 2011; 55: 719–729.

129.

Bochet

Lehuédé

Dauvillier

et al . Adipocyte-derived fibroblasts promote tumor progression and contribute to the desmoplastic reaction in breast cancer. Cancer Res 2013; 73: 5657–5668.

130.

Howe

Subbaramaiah

Hudis

et al . Molecular pathways: adipose inflammation as a mediator of obesity-associated cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19: 6074–6083.

131.

Ribeiro

Monteiro

Cunha

et al . Tumor cell-educated periprostatic adipose tissue acquires an aggressive cancer-promoting secretory profile. Cell Physiol Biochem 2012; 29: 233–240.

132.

Dirat

Bochet

Escourrou

et al . Unraveling the obesity and breast cancer links: a role for cancer-associated adipocytes? Endocr Dev 2010; 19: 45–52.

133.

Wang

Gao

Chen

et al . Mammary fat of breast cancer: gene expression profiling and functional characterization. PLoS ONE 2014; 9: e109742.

134.

Picon-Ruiz

Pan

Drews-Elger

et al . Interactions between adipocytes and breast cancer cells stimulate cytokine production and drive Src/Sox2/miR-302b-mediated malignant progression. Cancer Res 2016; 76: 491–504.

135.

Fujisaki

Fujimoto

Sangai

et al . Cancer-mediated adipose reversion promotes cancer cell migration via IL-6 and MCP-1. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015; 150: 255–263.

136.

DeClerck

YA.

Desmoplasia: a response or a niche?

Cancer Discov 2012; 2: 772–774.

137.

Tisdale

Cachexia in cancer patients. Nat Rev Genet 2002; 3: 883–889.

138.

Peck

Schug

Zhang

et al . Inhibition of fatty acid desaturation is detrimental to cancer cell survival in metabolically compromised environments. Cancer Metab 2016; 4: 6.

139.

Wright

Iyer

AKV

Azad

Fatty acid synthase (FASN) inhibition negatively affects cell proliferation and the metastatic capability of prostate cancer cells. In: Proceedings of the 107th annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, 16–20 April 2016, New Orleans, LA, p. 1300. Philadelphia, PA: AACR.

140.

Schrijver

De Brusselmans

Heyns

et al . RNA interference-mediated silencing of the fatty acid synthase gene attenuates growth and induces morphological changes and apoptosis of LNCaP prostate cancer cells. Cancer Res 2003; 63: 3799–3804.

141.

Pizer

Chrest

Digiuseppe

et al . Pharmacological inhibitors of mammalian fatty acid synthase suppress DNA replication and induce apoptosis in tumor cell lines. Cancer Res 1998; 58: 4611–4615.

142.

Liu

Zhang

J-T.

A new mechanism of drug resistance in breast cancer cells: fatty acid synthase overexpression-mediated palmitate overproduction. Mol Cancer Ther 2008; 7: 263–270.

143.

Corominas-Faja

Vellon

Serra

et al . Clinical and therapeutic relevance of the metabolic oncogene fatty acid synthase in HER2+ breast cancer. Histol Histopathol 2016; 32: 687–698.

144.

Chan

DSM

Vieira

Aune

et al . Body mass index and survival in women with breast cancer-systematic literature review and meta-analysis of 82 follow-up studies. Ann Oncol 2014; 25: 1901–1914.

145.

Gelelete

Pereira

Azevedo

et al . Overweight as a prognostic factor in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2011; 19: 1908–1911.

146.

Meloni

Troia

Capria

et al . Obesity and autologous stem cell transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia. Bone Marrow Trans 2001; 28: 365–367.

147.

Lehrmann

Bowers

Brenner

et al . Obesity confers chemotherapy resistance in triple negative breast cancer cells. In: Thirty-seventh annual CTRC-AACR breast cancer symposium, 9–13 December 2014, San Antonio, TX, pp. 5–13. Philadelphia, PA: AACR.

148.

Gordon

Taylor

PR.

Monocyte and macrophage heterogeneity. Nat Rev Immunol 2005; 55: 953–964.

149.

Coffelt

Hughes

Lewis

CE.

Tumor-associated macrophages: effectors of angiogenesis and tumor progression. Biochim Biophys Acta 2009; 1796: 11–18.

150.

Dijkgraaf

Heusinkveld

Tummers

et al . Chemotherapy alters monocyte differentiation to favor generation of cancer-supporting M2 macrophages in the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Res 2013; 1373: 2480–2492.

151.

De Palma

Lewis

. Cancer: macrophages limit chemotherapy. Nature 2011; 472: 303–304.

152.

Mantovani

Schioppa

Porta

et al . Role of tumor-associated macrophages in tumor progression and invasion. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2006; 25: 315–322.

153.

Mantovani

Sica

Macrophages, innate immunity and cancer: balance, tolerance, and diversity. Curr Opin Immunol 2010; 22: 231–237.

154.

Pollard

JW.

Tumour-educated macrophages promote tumour progression and metastasis. Nat Rev Cancer 2004; 44: 71–78.

155.

Condeelis

Pollard

JW.

Macrophages: obligate partners for tumor cell migration, invasion, and metastasis. Cell 2006; 124: 263–266.

156.

Gorelik

Flavell

RA.

Transforming growth factor-beta in T-cell biology. Nat Rev Immunol 2002; 2: 46–53.

157.

Wan

Sanjabi

et al . Transforming growth factor-beta regulation of immune responses. Ann Rev Immunol 2006; 24: 99–146.

158.

Yang

Pang

Moses

HL.

TGF-beta and immune cells: an important regulatory axis in the tumor microenvironment and progression. Trends Immunol 2010; 31: 220–227.

159.

Menetrier-Caux

Montmain

Dieu

et al . Inhibition of the differentiation of dendritic cells from CD34(+) progenitors by tumor cells: role of interleukin-6 and macrophage colony-stimulating factor. Blood 1998; 92: 4778–4791.

160.

Sica

Saccani

Bottazzi

et al . Autocrine production of IL-10 mediates defective IL-12 production and NF-kappa B activation in tumor-associated macrophages. J Immunol 2000; 164: 762–767.

161.

Bak

Alonso

Turk

et al . Murine ovarian cancer vascular leukocytes require arginase-1 activity for T cell suppression. Mol Immunol 2008; 46: 258–268.

162.

Rodriguez

Quiceno

Ochoa

AC.

l-arginine availability regulates T-lymphocyte cell-cycle progression. Blood 2006; 109: 1568–1573.

163.

Rodriguez

Zea

DeSalvo

et al . l-arginine consumption by macrophages modulates the expression of CD3 zeta chain in T lymphocytes. J Immunol 2003; 171: 1232–1239.

164.

Fulton

Loveless

Heppner

GH.

Mutagenic activity of tumor-associated macrophages in Salmonella typhimurium strains TA98 and TA 100. Cancer Res 1984; 44: 4308–4311.

165.

Maeda

Akaike

Nitric oxide and oxygen radicals in infection, inflammation, and cancer. Biochem 1998; 63: 854–865.

166.

Hudson

Shoaibi

Maestro

et al . A proinflammatory cytokine inhibits p53 tumor suppressor activity. J Exp Med 1999; 190: 1375–1382.

167.

Qian

Pollard

JW.

Macrophage diversity enhances tumor progression and metastasis. Cell 2010; 141: 39–51.

168.

Goswami

Sahai

Wyckoff

et al . Macrophages promote the invasion of breast carcinoma cells via a colony-stimulating factor-1/epidermal growth factor paracrine loop. Cancer Res 2005; 65: 5278–5283.

169.

Wyckoff

Wang

Lin

et al . A paracrine loop between tumor cells and macrophages is required for tumor cell migration in mammary tumors. Cancer Res 2004; 64: 7022–7029.

170.

Gocheva

Wang

Gadea

et al . IL-4 induces cathepsin protease activity in tumor-associated macrophages to promote cancer growth and invasion. Genes Dev 2010; 24: 241–255.

171.

Polette

Nawrocki-Raby

Gilles

et al . Tumour invasion and matrix metalloproteinases. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2004; 49: 179–186.

172.

Sica

Bronte

Altered macrophage differentiation and immune dysfunction in tumor development. J Clin Invest 2007; 117: 1155–1166.

173.

Lee

Choi

et al . Recruitment of monocytes/macrophages in different tumor microenvironments. Biochim Biophys Acta 2013; 1835: 170–179.

174.

Bingle

Brown

Lewis

CE.

The role of tumour-associated macrophages in tumour progression: implications for new anticancer therapies. J Pathol 2002; 196: 254–265.

175.

Chen

Lin

Yao

et al . Tumor-associated macrophages: the double-edged sword in cancer progression. J Clin Oncol 2004; 23: 953–964.

176.

Ryder

Ghossein

Ricarte-Filho

et al . Increased density of tumor-associated macrophages is associated with decreased survival in advanced thyroid cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer 2008; 15: 1069–1074.

177.

Arenberg

Keane

DiGiovine

et al . Macrophage infiltration in human non-small-cell lung cancer: the role of CC chemokines. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2000; 49: 63–70.

178.

Leung

Wong

Chung

et al . Monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 expression and macrophage infiltration in gliomas. Acta Neuropathol 1997; 93: 518–527.

179.

Negus

Stamp

Hadley

et al . Quantitative assessment of the leukocyte infiltrate in ovarian cancer and its relationship to the expression of C-C chemokines. Am J Pathol 1997; 150: 1723–1734.

180.

Ueno

Toi

Saji

et al . Significance of macrophage chemoattractant protein-1 in macrophage recruitment, angiogenesis, and survival in human breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2000; 6: 3282–3289.

181.

Bottazzi

Walter

Govoni

et al . Monocyte chemotactic cytokine gene transfer modulates macrophage infiltration, growth, and susceptibility to IL-2 therapy of a murine melanoma. J Immunol 1992; 148: 1280–1285.

182.

Gazzaniga

Bravo

Guglielmotti

et al . Targeting tumor-associated macrophages and inhibition of MCP-1 reduce angiogenesis and tumor growth in a human melanoma xenograft. J Invest Dermatol 2007; 127: 2031–2041.

183.

Qian

Zhang

et al . CCL2 recruits inflammatory monocytes to facilitate breast-tumour metastasis. Nature 2011; 475: 222–225.

184.

Pollard

JW.

Trophic macrophages in development and disease. Nat Rev Immunol 2009; 9: 259–270.

185.

Kacinski

BM.

CSF-1 and its receptor in breast carcinomas and neoplasms of the female reproductive tract. Mol Reprod Dev 1997;46: 71–74.

186.

Lin

Bricard

et al . Vascular endothelial growth factor restores delayed tumor progression in tumors depleted of macrophages. Mol Oncol 2008; 1: 288–302.

187.

Lin

Nguyen

Russell

et al . Colony-stimulating factor 1 promotes progression of mammary tumors to malignancy. J Exp Med 2001; 193: 727–740.

188.

Toy

Azodi

Folk

et al . Enhanced ovarian cancer tumorigenesis and metastasis by the macrophage colony-stimulating factor. Neoplasia 2009; 11: 136–144.

189.

Ide

Seligson

Memarzadeh

et al . Expression of colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor during prostate development and prostate cancer progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002; 99: 14404–14409.

190.

Mroczko

Groblewska

Wereszczynska-Siemiatkowska

et al . Serum macrophage-colony stimulating factor levels in colorectal cancer patients correlate with lymph node metastasis and poor prognosis. Clin Chim Acta 2007; 380: 208–212.

191.

Hou

Falcone

Subbaramaiah

et al . Macrophages induce COX-2 expression in breast cancer cells: role of IL-1beta autoamplification. Carcinogenesis 2011; 32: 695–702.

192.

Richards

Hettinger

Feuerer

Monocytes and macrophages in cancer: development and functions. Cancer Microenviron 2012; 6: 179–191.

193.

Folkman

Hanahan

Switch to the angiogenic phenotype during tumorigenesis. Princess Tak Symp 1991; 22: 339–347.

194.

Hanahan

Folkman

Patterns and emerging mechanisms of the angiogenic switch during tumorigenesis. Cell 1996; 86: 353–364.

195.

Liu

Chang

et al . Comprehensive proteomics analysis reveals metabolic reprogramming of tumor-associated macrophages stimulated by the tumor microenvironment. J Proteome Res 2016; 16: 288–297.

196.

Penny

Sieow

Adriani

et al . Warburg metabolism in tumor-conditioned macrophages promotes metastasis in human pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Oncoimmunology 2016; 5: e1191731.

197.

Arts

Plantinga

Tuit

et al . Transcriptional and metabolic reprogramming induce an inflammatory phenotype in non-medullary thyroid carcinoma-induced macrophages. Oncoimmunology 2017; 5: e1229725.

198.

Tannahill

Curtis

Adamik

et al . Succinate is an inflammatory signal that induces IL-1beta through HIF-1alpha. Nature 2013; 496: 238–242.

199.

Wenes

Shang

Di Matteo

et al . Macrophage metabolism controls tumor blood vessel morphogenesis and metastasis. Cell Metab 2016; 24: 701–715.

200.

Wise

Ward

Shay

et al . Hypoxia promotes isocitrate dehydrogenase-dependent carboxylation of α-ketoglutarate to citrate to support cell growth and viability. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011; 108: 19611–19616.

201.

Metallo

Gameiro

Bell

et al . Reductive glutamine metabolism by IDH1 mediates lipogenesis under hypoxia. Nature 2011; 481: 380–384.

202.

Choi

Stradmann-Bellinghausen

Yakubov

et al . Glioblastoma cells induce differential glutamatergic gene expressions in human tumor-associated microglia/macrophages and monocyte-derived macrophages. Cancer Biol Ther 2015; 16: 1205–1213.

203.

Chang

Liao

Kuo

Macrophage arginase promotes tumor cell growth and suppresses nitric oxide-mediated tumor cytotoxicity. Cancer Res 2001; 61: 1100–1106.

204.

Mills

Shearer

Evans

et al . Macrophage arginine metabolism and the inhibition or stimulation of cancer. J Immunol 1992; 149: 2709–2714.