Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35107989›Full record

ReviewChemical reviews2022

Chemical and Biomolecular Strategies for STING Pathway Activation in Cancer Immunotherapy.

Kyle M Garland, Taylor L Sheehy, John T Wilson

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chemical reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 170 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
170citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
24.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

170 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 312 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Self-assembled supramolecular nanoparticles ofActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

110 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kyle M GarlandDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, 37235 United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0722-4245
Taylor L SheehyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, 37235 United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3100-8115
John T WilsonDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, 37235 United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9144-2634
Vanderbilt University · US

Funding

Expanding the Therapeutic Window of Nanoparticle STING Agonists for Cancer ImmunotherapyR01CA245134 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI WILSON, JOHN TANNER · 2020 to 2025
$1.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA245134
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The stimulator of interferon genes (STING) cellular signaling pathway is a promising target for cancer immunotherapy. Activation of the intracellular STING protein triggers the production of a multifaceted array of immunostimulatory molecules, which, in the proper context, can drive dendritic cell maturation, antitumor macrophage polarization, T cell priming and activation, natural killer cell activation, vascular reprogramming, and/or cancer cell death, resulting in immune-mediated tumor elimination and generation of antitumor immune memory. Accordingly, there is a significant amount of ongoing preclinical and clinical research toward further understanding the role of the STING pathway in cancer immune surveillance as well as the development of modulators of the pathway as a strategy to stimulate antitumor immunity. Yet, the efficacy of STING pathway agonists is limited by many drug delivery and pharmacological challenges. Depending on the class of STING agonist and the desired administration route, these may include poor drug stability, immunocellular toxicity, immune-related adverse events, limited tumor or lymph node targeting and/or retention, low cellular uptake and intracellular delivery, and a complex dependence on the magnitude and kinetics of STING signaling. This review provides a concise summary of the STING pathway, highlighting recent biological developments, immunological consequences, and implications for drug delivery. This review also offers a critical analysis of an expanding arsenal of chemical strategies that are being employed to enhance the efficacy, safety, and/or clinical utility of STING pathway agonists and lastly draws attention to several opportunities for therapeutic advancements.

Indexed as

Membrane ProteinsNeoplasmsDrug Delivery SystemsHumansImmunotherapySignal TransductionMembrane Proteins

Identifiers

PMID35107989
PMCPMC8994686
OpenAlexW4210772725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.