The abscopal effect: a sense of DNA damage is in the air

Tumor metastasis is a singularly important determinant of survival in most cancers. Historically, radiation therapy (RT) directed at a primary tumor mass was associated infrequently with remission of metastasis outside the field of irradiation. This away-from-target or “abscopal effect” received fringe attention because of its rarity. With the advent of immunotherapy, there are now increasing reports of abscopal effects upon RT in combination with immune checkpoint inhibition. This sparked investigation into underlying mechanisms and clinical trials aimed at enhancement of this effect. While these studies clearly attribute the abscopal effect to an antitumor immune response, the initial molecular triggers for its onset and specificity remain enigmatic. Here, we propose that DNA damage–induced inflammation coupled with neoantigen generation is essential during this intriguing phenomenon of systemic tumor regression and discuss the implications of this model for treatment aimed at triggering the abscopal effect in metastatic cancer.

The conception of the abscopal effect is credited to the British scientist Robin Mole, who in 1953 brought forward the notion that “irradiation of a mammal [has] an effect at a distance from the volume irradiated” (1). This terminology was later adopted by oncologists who described very rare cases of remission of metastases outside the field of irradiation from the 1970s onward (2, 3). Systematic literature searches have been carried out elsewhere and estimate that the number of reports that described abscopal effects in response to radiation therapy (RT) prior to 2014 does not exceed 47 individual cases (4, 5). This number increased markedly with the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) therapy in combination with RT (4, 6). Several attempts have been made to quantify the frequency of the abscopal effect in response to RT/ICI treatment. For example, analysis of ten nonrandomized studies of metastatic melanoma patients treated with RT/ICI between 2014 and 2019 revealed evidence for abscopal tumor remission in an average of 34.3% of cases (range 18%–63%; 62 total cases exhibiting an abscopal effect) (7). A similar meta-analysis of eight metastatic melanoma studies between 2009 and 2017 reported abscopal effect in mean 26.5% cases (range 10%–63%; 65 total cases exhibiting an abscopal effect) (8). Despite these encouraging observations, a randomized examination of the incidence of the abscopal effect in response to RT/ICI specifically is needed to ultimately determine the frequency of this phenomenon. In fact, one such randomized trial of RT/ICI in metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma showed evidence of the abscopal effect in zero of 32 cases (9). Further insight into the actual occurrence of abscopal responses may be gained by several upcoming randomized trials of RT and ICI combination treatments, which have been designed to systematically collect data on the incidence of responses outside of the radiation field in metastatic lung cancer (10, 11).

While it is clear that there are more recorded cases of the abscopal effect with the introduction of ICI, these are likely limited to a fraction of patients, and perhaps to specific cancer types. In accordance, many recorded instances of the abscopal effect occurred in melanoma and lung cancer, which commonly exhibit high lymphocyte infiltration and mutation rates (12). These emerging data point to the use of RT/ICI therapy in particularly immunogenic cancer subtypes, as this may preferably enable abscopal effects. Since this realization, an increasing focus has been placed on the determination of clinical parameters and treatment conditions that promote systemic responses to DNA-damaging therapies. Retrospective analyses have shown that abscopal tumor regression correlates with increased CD8⁺ cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) infiltration and decreased CD8⁺FoxP3⁺ regulatory T cells (Tregs) (13–15). Incidence of the abscopal effect also correlates negatively with lymphopenia (16). However, high-dose RT is associated with the depletion of patient immune cells. In line with this, one of the observations made was that fractionated RT is associated clinically with instances of the abscopal effect (17). In addition to this, highly targeted administration of RT by procedures such as stereotactic RT may further protect patient lymphocytes and promote the abscopal effect (18, 19). Investigation of the role of RT fractionation has been carried out in preclinical mouse models, which reinforce the notion that RT spread over at least two treatment sessions favors abscopal tumor regression (20, 21) in contrast to single high-dose RT, which favors Treg development and therefore likely promotes cancer progression (22). Targeted clinical trials are needed to stratify RT regimens that favor the onset of abscopal remission for specific cancer types, as discussed in recent focused reviews on the topic (23, 24). Nevertheless, existing retrospective analyses suggest that patients exhibit the abscopal effect in situations in which RT does not deplete all lymphocytes, CTL/Treg ratios are favorable, and immune stimulation is achieved by fractionated RT.

Murine models of the abscopal effect have been pursued, and as with the characterization of many other immunological phenomena, such studies have been vital for definition of underlying mechanisms. Early on, a landmark report demonstrated that abscopal tumor regression is not observed in immunodeficient mice (25). This established that the abscopal effect must be mediated by an antitumor immune response. Similarly, direct responses to RT in primary tumors are also mitigated in immunodeficient mice (26, 27). Generally, immune responses against tumor cells are thought to be specific to neoantigen generated by protein overexpression or sequence alterations in malignant cells (28). The main effectors of tumor cell killing are CTLs, which rely on neoantigen presentation by dendritic cells (DCs). Since tumor neoantigens are not present within DCs, such antigens are presented by specialized cross-priming DCs (cpDCs; Figure 1). In the context of the abscopal effect, this response is likely dependent on RT-induced cell death, which initiates antigen cross-presentation in DCs by activation of TLR4 (29) and type I interferon signaling (30). In addition to this, type I interferon signaling increases the number of tumor-associated DCs capable of cross-presentation (31). Neoantigens are presented via class I MHC molecules on cpDCs. Again, RT directly induces upregulation of these molecules and therefore enhances cross-presentation (32, 33). Depletion of cpDCs impairs the abscopal effect in mouse models of multiple cancer types (34), indicating that these cells are necessary for abscopal antitumor immune action. Taken together, these findings indicate that cross-presentation of neoantigen by DCs and tumor-reactive CTLs plays a major role in adaptive immune activation in the context of the abscopal effect, and RT may trigger this on multiple levels.

Figure 1

Overview of the antitumor immune response during the abscopal effect. Antigen generation occurs upon tumor cell death due to RT and neoantigen (pink) uptake by cross-priming dendritic cells (cpDCs). Type I inflammation is triggered with associated cytokine secretion (type I interferon, blue), which upregulates MHC class I molecules on cpDCs. These cells migrate to lymph nodes from the site of the primary tumor and present tumor-associated antigens to naive T cells. This gives rise to a population of tumor-reactive CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells, as depicted, and these cells are released systemically. At the primary tumor mass, tumor-reactive T cells are the main effectors carrying out the abscopal effect. This includes release of cytotoxic molecules (green) by CD8⁺ T cells upon recognition of tumor antigen (pink). This is aided by costimulatory release of cytokines such as IL-2 by CD4⁺ T cells upon antigen recognition, which promote T cell proliferation and effector function. M1 macrophages contribute to tumor cell killing by direct phagocytosis and secretion of type I inflammatory cytokines (purple). Importantly, given that immune cells are primed in lymph nodes and released systemically, these activities also take place at distal metastases where tumors exhibit the same antigen, which gives rise to the abscopal effect.

Upon activation, cpDCs migrate to lymph nodes and engage with naive T cells to give rise to tumor-specific CTLs (35). T cell priming occurs by neoantigen presentation on class I MHC by cpDCs, secondary activation signals, and engagement with CD4⁺ T cells in lymph nodes (36). Upon release of tumor-reactive CTLs to the periphery, such cells are capable of infiltrating tumor tissue by extravasation. This step presents a considerable barrier to abscopal responses since tumor tissue is often inaccessible to CTLs. In fact, increased CTL accessibility to the tumor site is strongly correlated with antitumor immunity (37, 38). RT makes tumor tissue more accessible to CTLs. For example, RT triggers the production of the CTL attractant chemokine CXCR16 (39, 40). In addition to this, RT induces changes in the tissue architecture by upregulation of ICAM-1 and VCAM-1 (41), which promote vasculature permissive for CTL tumor extravasation. Therefore, while CTLs may reach irradiated primary tumor cells more readily, metastatic sites are far less accessible, thus limiting abscopal tumor remission. Effective tumor cell lysis is achieved by recognition of neoantigen by CTLs and cell killing via cytotoxic degranulation or induction of tumor cell apoptosis (42). However, evidence suggests that oftentimes, tumor cell surface expression of the inhibitory signal molecules PD-1, PD-L1, and CTLA-4 potently counteracts this process (43, 44). Prominently, monoclonal antibodies against these inhibitory molecules have been utilized extensively to stimulate CTL-mediated tumor cell killing (45). This inhibition of immune checkpoints is thought to be one of the reasons underlying the increased incidence of abscopal responses upon RT/ICI treatment. In summary, tumor cell killing during the abscopal effect likely depends on CTL infiltration into the primary tumor mass and distal metastases, and this is augmented by ICI.

Another emerging mode of tumor cell killing during the abscopal effect is phagocytosis. Accumulating evidence suggests that this process is carried out by M1-like macrophages (M1-MΦ), a cell subset capable of inflammatory cytokine secretion and phagocytosis (46, 47). Two independent studies of mouse models showing RT/ICI-induced abscopal remission in metastatic non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma detected significant M1-MΦ populations at the site of tumor remission (48, 49). In addition to this, impairment of recruitment by genetic deletion of the main MΦ chemokine attractant CCL2 resulted in decreased RT-mediated abscopal responses in mice (50). Strikingly, there are specific settings where RT/ICI abscopal responses are entirely dependent on M1-MΦ phagocytosis and do not rely on CTL-mediated cell killing (51). These data using mouse models indicate that such cells may be important in the clearance of tumor cells during the abscopal effect. In support of this notion, one clinical trial showed that RT in combination with administration of GM-CSF, a potent activator of M1-MΦ development, increased the incidence of abscopal remission in various metastatic solid tumors (52). In addition, the alternative cell fate in MΦ development, namely M2-MΦ, is well known to inhibit antitumor immune reactivity (53). Therefore, it is likely that bias toward M1-MΦ development in the tumor counteracts the genesis of suppressive M2-MΦ cells and is beneficial for abscopal remission. This leads to a model whereby abscopal effects rely on tumor clearance mediated by both primed CTL activity and phagocytosis via tumor-associated M1-MΦ cells (Figure 1). The specificity of antitumor reactivity is conferred by T cell–mediated neoantigen recognition in both modes of tumor cell killing, since M1-MΦ cells are not capable of sensing antigen.

Understanding the onset of the abscopal effect is imperative for the development of treatments aimed at stimulating it in a predictable manner. RT is a well-documented trigger of DNA damage, and this has taken center stage in efforts to define the underlying mechanism of the initiation of the abscopal effect. DNA damage upon RT occurs via two primary mechanisms: direct breakage of DNA by high-energy photons and the generation of free radicals (54). Perhaps the most detrimental form of DNA damage is the generation of double-strand breaks (DSBs) in genomic DNA. Under steady-state conditions, DNA strand breaks are repaired during a prolonged period of cell cycle arrest, enacted by the checkpoint signaling kinases ATM and ATR, that prevents progression of cells with DNA damage into mitosis. This delay in cell cycle advancement allows additional time for a myriad of DNA damage response (DDR) proteins to faithfully repair the genomic lesions (55). Cell cycle checkpoint disruption commonly occurs in cancer cells, or can be pharmacologically impaired by small-molecule inhibitors of ATR (56–58), thus allowing unrepaired damage to persist during mitosis and become mis-segregated into the cytoplasm. Such damaged DNA is proinflammatory when exposed to the cytoplasm, where it can be recognized by pattern recognition receptor (PRR) molecules that canonically respond to pathogenic nucleic acids following bacterial or viral infection (59). DNA damage and checkpoint responses also impact transcription of noncoding RNA elements, with loss of p53 notably resulting in a robust increase in retroelements following DSB induction (60, 61). This resulting deregulation of RNA molecules is another potential source of immune activation upon RT through RNA-sensing PRR responses (62). Therefore, DNA damage likely has a broad effect on the immunogenicity of self-DNA and -RNA throughout the cell, and it has become apparent that such molecules are triggers of innate immune responses.

Micronuclei are generated upon RT and other forms of DNA damage, as well as by agents that disrupt the mitotic spindle (63). Indeed, the correlation between micronucleus formation and irradiation is so tight that it has been used to monitor accidental exposure to radiation in atomic power plant workers (64, 65). Micronuclei arise in response to mitotic errors including improper attachment to tubulin fibers or the centriole as well as unrepaired chromosome breakage resulting in fragments without functional kinetochores (66, 67). Collectively, such events result in the aberrant occurrence of chromosomal DNA in the middle of the mitotic plane at telophase, which results in a failure to incorporate this DNA into the primary nucleus. An abnormal nuclear envelope forms, which is prone to rupture and exposure of DNA to the cytoplasm (68). This exposure is reminiscent of the presence of pathogen DNA in the cytoplasm and, as such, triggers an innate immune response (Figure 2). Indeed, if cells divide in the presence of damaged DNA, micronuclei trigger a type I interferon and NF-κB response dependent on the DNA-sensing PRR cGAS (69, 70). Nucleosomes are poor cGAS activators in cells (71–74). Therefore, immune signaling likely occurs as deregulated DNA replication, and repair in micronuclei results in damaged nucleosome-free DNA, which is then exposed to the cytoplasm in the subsequent mitosis or via micronuclear envelope rupture (75). Upon cGAS activation, paracrine cyclic dinucleotide cGAMP is synthesized and triggers type I inflammation dependent on phosphorylation of TBK1, the ER-associated transducer STING, IRF3, and NF-κB (76–79). The importance of this process for the induction of the abscopal effect was demonstrated in STING^–/– mice, which were impaired in micronucleus-mediated immune induction and abscopal tumor regression upon treatment with RT/ICI (69, 70, 80). Moreover, progression through mitosis is critical for DNA damage–induced antitumor immune responses (75). In summary, exposure of RT-induced micronuclear DNA to the cytoplasm is a potent trigger of type I interferon signaling, and this likely contributes to the onset of the abscopal effect.

Figure 2

Sensing of self-nucleotides upon DNA damage triggers innate immunity. Cytoplasmic DNA may arise upon DNA damage in the main nucleus where replication intermediates are cleaved during repair and released into the cytoplasm. Other sources of cytoplasmic DNA include the release of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and micronuclear DNA. Such molecules have been shown to be recognized by cGAS, which facilitates the generation of cGAMP and subsequent downstream signaling by activation and phosphorylation of ER-associated STING. This triggers a phosphorylation cascade involving many factors, including TBK1 and various IKK family proteins. Similarly, DNA damage results in the release of RNA into the cytoplasm as a result of deregulated transcription, especially of repetitive elements including SINEs, as well as the release of mtRNA. These molecules are sensed by RIG-I and MDA5, depending on their length, and trigger immune signaling by engagement with mitochondrial membrane–associated MAVS. Upon activation, MAVS is polyubiquitinated by factors such as TRIM25 and engages in a phosphorylation cascade similar to that of activated STING. Ultimately, both of these result in the phosphorylation and nuclear translocation of IRF3 and NF-κB, which induces transcription of innate immune effector genes.

Another source of proinflammatory self-DNA is exposure of the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) to the cytoplasm. Release of mtDNA has been described in detail for cells undergoing apoptosis, where it triggers type I inflammation (81). This is important since RT is well known to induce apoptotic cell death in the field of irradiation, and therefore, proinflammatory mtDNA release from tumor cells is likely to play an important role in the initiation of antitumor immunity during the abscopal effect. Several studies in mice demonstrated that cGAS sensing of self-DNA and immune activation is mediated by activation of cpDCs through uptake of tumor mtDNA (82–84). In addition, abscopal tumor remission was augmented with increased mtDNA release into the cytoplasm of tumor cells (85). In summary, mtDNA may present an additional source of immunogenic DNA, which is sensed in the cytoplasm during the initiation of the abscopal effect.

RT-induced DNA lesions result in replication fork stalling and fork collapse. Intact DNA repair pathways are capable of counteracting this, and impairment of such pathways may result in proinflammatory release of damaged genomic DNA into the cytoplasm. Evidence for this model is currently limited to studies of tumor cell lines. For example, excessive replication fork stalling in HEK293T cells depleted of the DNA repair protein SAMHD1 results in abundant cytosolic ssDNA, which induces type I immune signaling (86). In addition, it was proposed that defective retention of nuclear ssDNA upon knockdown of the key DNA repair factors RAD51 and RPA resulted in immunostimulatory release of these molecules into the cytoplasm, albeit the mechanisms of DNA transport from the nucleus to cytoplasm were not explained (87). Similarly, another report in HEK293T cells showed that induction of cytosolic ssDNA and dsDNA by RT was dependent on impaired replication fork progression and RAD51-dependent fork rescue (88). However, given that cGAS is not activated by ssDNA (89), the identity of the PRR involved in the sensing of cytoplasmic, damaged self-ssDNA remains to be determined. Further, the relevance of replication-stress associated DNA breakage and leakage of damaged ssDNA from collapsed forks due to impaired DNA repair remains to be investigated. Indeed, PARP inhibitor–induced STAT1 phosphorylation in BRCA1 mutant cells still required passage through mitosis (69), suggesting commonality with RT-stimulated immune responses. Nevertheless, the eventual cytoplasmic destination of such inflammatory molecules may well play a role in the onset of the abscopal effect upon RT, where replication forks stall and collapse frequently.

Finally, in light of the proinflammatory nature of cytoplasmic self-DNA, negative regulators of these molecules have been investigated as putative gatekeepers, in turn, of the abscopal effect. For example, the cytoplasmic nuclease TREX1 has been shown to degrade cytoplasmic DNA and inhibit innate immune induction upon DNA damage. Indeed, TREX1 overexpression impaired cpDC activation and antitumor CTL priming in mice, ultimately abrogating abscopal responses upon RT/ICI (90). Similarly, cytoplasmic DNA originating from mitochondria upon DNA damage insult is removed by autophagy (91). Genetic ablation of autophagy in tumor cells resulted in markedly increased abscopal responses in mice (85), suggesting that autophagy acts as another negative regulator by removing proinflammatory self-DNA. Thus, negative regulators of cytoplasmic DNA also limit the abscopal effect.

In summary, DNA damage resulting in the accumulation of cytoplasmic DNA from micronuclei, mitochondria, or genomic replication stress may be an activator of the innate immune response during abscopal tumor remission (Figure 2).

DNA damage impacts on transcription. RNA polymerase II is degraded upon DNA damage (92), and transcription is silenced on chromatin in cis to DSBs (93, 94), decreasing gene expression globally. Similarly, the genesis of rRNA by RNA polymerase I is suppressed upon DNA damage (95–98). On the other hand, transcription of repetitive sequences including telomeres and short interspersed nuclear elements (SINEs) is increased upon damage (60, 99). It has been shown that cytoplasmic self-RNA is proinflammatory in the context of antitumor immunity. dsRNA is sensed by the PRRs MDA5 and RIG-I (100), which induce type I inflammatory signaling by activation of the mitochondrial adaptor protein MAVS (101). This is followed by a signaling cascade that results in the activation of ISG expression via nuclear translocation of active IRF3/7 or NF-κB (102, 103). Direct repeat Alu elements have been shown to activate MDA5 (104–106). In addition, several endogenous 5′-triphosphorylated RNAs have been shown to activate RIG-I (107, 108). While the source of endogenous proinflammatory RNA is unclear, DNA-damaging modalities activate the RNA-sensing PRR RIG-I in a manner that also requires progression through mitosis and is substantially augmented by combined loss of the G₁/S and G₂/M checkpoints in p53 mutant cells treated with ATR inhibitors (75, 109).

Such sensing of self-RNA has been described as the trigger of antitumor immunity in multiple studies using mouse models of cancer. For example, derepression of SINEs by 5-aza-2′-deoxycitidine treatment has been shown to lead to accumulation of cytoplasmic RNA, type I inflammation, and antitumor immunity (110). In this context, ADAR1 is thought to present a negative-feedback loop, which constrains antitumor immunity. Indeed, ADAR1 knockout enhances SINE-dependent antitumor immunity in mice (111). In another study, ADAR1-knockout tumors resulted in significant enhancement of antitumor immunity with a concomitant increase in CTLs and depletion of tumor M2-MΦ populations (112). Another source of self-RNA are mitochondria, where dsRNA is abundant owing to convergent transcription (113). Upon entry into the cytoplasm, such molecules have been shown to be proinflammatory by activation of MDA5 (106) and RIG-I (114). Again, 5-aza-2′-deoxycitidine has been shown to increase cytosolic mitochondrial dsRNA, leading to antitumor immunity (115). On the basis of these reports, sensing of self-RNA in the cytoplasm as a result of deregulated transcription or mitochondrial permeabilization is an effective trigger of antitumor immunity that may contribute to the innate immune induction required for the abscopal effect (Figure 2).

In the case of innate sensing of both DNA and RNA, nuclear translocation of effector transcription factors initiates secretion of cytokines, which ready the immune system for T cell priming. In both cases, NF-κB is phosphorylated and activated to induce expression of the T cell chemoattractant CXCL10 (116) as well as many other cytokines, including the inflammasome and apoptosis activator IL-1β (117–119). Engagement with cytoplasmic self-nucleotides also results in activation of IRF3, which induces interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs) including type I interferons such as IFN-β (120, 121), potently stimulating cpDC activation (122). In addition to this, the transcription factor IRF7 is markedly upregulated and activated in a positive-feedback loop, further potentiating induction of ISGs (123, 124). Many of the targets of NF-κB, IRF3, and IRF7 overlap, and activation of these factors in tandem induces rapid and strong ISG induction. The activation of these genes, triggered by sensing of self-nucleotides upon DNA damage, creates a powerful cytokine milieu, which favors antigen cross-presentation and antitumor CTL priming.

Antitumor immune responses are directed against rearranged and overexpressed proteins in cancer cells, which are defined herein as tumor neoantigens (125, 126). Given that the abscopal effect constitutes such a response, neoantigen generation likely presents a crucial step in its onset. DNA damage upon RT or chemotherapy may play a key role in this process. Extensive or misrepaired DNA damage induces genomic instability, resulting in the translation of rearranged polypeptide sequences. In addition, increased intergenic instability may result in overexpression of transcripts (127), and indeed, aberrantly abundant proteins are a known source of tumor neoantigens. DNA repair proceeds via two main pathways. During G₂/M phase of the cell cycle, the complementary sister chromatid is used to accurately copy sequence information and repair the break in error-free homologous recombination (HR) (128). On the other hand, in the absence of homologous template sequence during G₁, DNA breaks are mainly repaired via non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) (129). However, a number of other DDR pathways, such as alternative end joining (Alt-EJ), exist in cells; these are utilized when HR and NHEJ are overwhelmed or inactivated. Crucially, such alternative DDR pathways are often inherently mutagenic, and this is thought to be a source of changes in genetic sequence (130). Indeed, neoantigens frequently arise due to changes in peptide sequence (131), and inactivating mutations in canonical DDR pathways correlate with increased tumor neoantigen (132). We argue that DNA damage generates neoantigens that present the point of attack for immune cells when they become recurrent in clonally selected populations, thus allowing an abscopal effect.

Specific anticancer immune reactivity is mediated by T cell receptors on CTLs, which recognize tumor neoantigen. Detailed investigation into neoantigen identity has taken place with the aim of tumor vaccine development, and it has become clear that neoantigen may be generated via multiple pathways, all of which are dependent on DNA damage–driven changes in nucleotide sequence (Figure 3). One class of neoantigen is driven by damage-induced gross rearrangements, resulting in aberrant promoter translocation and atypically high expression of protein. This takes place by DSB and by aberrant, Polθ-mediated Alt-EJ at the site of translocation (133, 134). For example, in over 50% of prostate cancers, the transcription factor ETS is aberrantly expressed at high levels by fusion to the TMPRSS2 promoter sequence (135). Upon tumor cell lysis during early stages of prostate cancer, antitumor CTLs are primed against ETS neoantigen (136), which are later inhibited by direct action of ETS and recruitment of Tregs during the evolution of most disease instances (137). Similarly, metastatic melanoma atypically expresses high levels of the circadian clock gene BMAL1 by translocation, which again correlates with mostly exhausted CTL infiltration into the tumor (138). Similarly, intergenic DSBs and subsequent repair give rise to fusion oncogenes such as BCR-ABL or ETV6-RUNX1, which are well-documented drivers and neoantigens found in diverse cancers (139–141). Given that abundant DNA damage during RT may promote repair by Alt-EJ, we propose that chromosomal rearrangements analogous to the examples described above may generate immune target neoantigens during abscopal tumor remission.

Figure 3

Mechanisms of neoantigen generation upon DNA damage. Damaged DNA may be intergenic, or between genes and promoter sequences. Damaged DNA may be repaired by end-joining pathways upon pharmacological impairment or HR deficiency (left pathway). Such repair is associated with sequence changes due to the fact that Alt-EJ and MMR result in small indels at the site of repair. In addition to this, repair by NHEJ involves end processing by factors such as Artemis, and this also results in small sequence changes at the site of ligation. Together, such repair mechanisms result in changes in nucleotide sequence at the site of repair. The resulting missense mutations are capable of producing changes in amino acid sequence that may give rise to neoantigen. In a complementary or alternative mechanism, breakage of DNA at two distinct loci may give rise to promoter translocation and aberrant overexpression of a given antigen (right pathway). These pathways are likely not exclusive events and may give rise to tumor neoantigens targeted by the immune system during the abscopal effect.

Another frequent source of neoantigens is genetic mutation resulting in altered peptide sequence. This includes missense mutations, which lead to tumor-specific amino acid changes. Peptides corresponding to such sequence changes are recognized in cancer (142, 143), and CTL-mediated antitumor immune responses specific to such mutated protein have been recorded (144). Missense mutations have been linked to abscopal antitumor immune responses. For instance, adoptive transfer of CTLs specific to a point mutation in b-Raf resulted in abscopal regression (145). In other cases, mutated proteins are also overexpressed, potentially aiding their immunogenicity (146). Missense mutations are not the only genetic change resulting in neoantigen peptides. For example, mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency is closely associated with a robust response to ICI, and PD-1 antagonists are approved in cancers with microsatellite instability irrespective of tissue of origin (147, 148). This is the first “tumor-agnostic” approval of a cancer therapy, and in such patients, frameshift mutations are predictive of response (149), suggesting that this form of genome instability is particularly active in generating neoantigens. Interestingly, recent investigation has indicated that antitumor immunity in the context of MMR deficiency, modeled by loss of the key MMR protein MHL1, may involve excessive end resection of DSBs and aberrant DNA repair intermediates that become missegregated into micronuclei and are sensed via cGAS/STING as described above (150, 151). However, given that other MMR factors, including MHS2 and MHS6, are also predictive of antitumor immune responses upon ICI treatment in patients (152), it is more plausible that high mutation burden remains the dominant contributing factor in this phenomenon. Systematic analysis across cancer types indicates that small indels also give rise to a large proportion of neoantigen (125). Indeed, frameshift mutations in MMR-deficient cancers were implicated in the generation of neoantigens (153). Either way, during RT-induced abscopal remission, the underlying cause of these changes in sequence is DNA damage. Repair by both NHEJ and Alt-EJ frequently generates small indels at the site of repair (154, 155).

Thus, altered peptide sequence generated by repair of abundant RT-induced damage is another source of neoantigen during the onset of the abscopal effect (Figure 3). Such immunogenic epitopes likely complement neoantigen generated by alternative means that are largely independent of damaged DNA and its ensuing repair. This includes altered peptide sequence as a result of alternative splicing, and we direct the interested reader to a recent exhaustive review on this topic (156).

This work was supported by NIH grants GM101149 and CA17494 (to RAG), and a V Foundation Team Convergence Award. RAG is also supported by funds from the Penn Center for Genome Integrity, the Basser Center for BRCA, and the Mark Foundation Center for Immunotherapy, Immune Signaling, and Radiation.

Address correspondence to: Timothy P. Lippert or Roger A. Greenberg, Department of Cancer Biology, Penn Center for Genome Integrity, Basser Center for BRCA, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 421 Curie Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA. Email: timothy.lippert@pennmedicine.upenn.edu (TPL); rogergr@pennmedicine.upenn.edu (RAG).

Conflict of interest: RAG is a cofounder of and scientific advisory board member for JAMM Therapeutics and RADD Pharmaceuticals.

Copyright: © 2021, American Society for Clinical Investigation.

Reference information: J Clin Invest. 2021;131(9):e148274.https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI148274.

1. Mole RH. Whole body irradiation; radiobiology or medicine? Br J Radiol. 1953;26(305):234–241.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
2. Kingsley DP. An interesting case of possible abscopal effect in malignant melanoma. Br J Radiol. 1975;48(574):863–866.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
3. Ehlers G, Fridman M. Abscopal effect of radiation in papillary adenocarcinoma. Br J Radiol. 1973;46(543):220–222.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
4. Dagoglu N, et al. Abscopal effect of radiotherapy in the immunotherapy era: systematic review of reported cases. Cureus. 2019;11(2):e4103.
   View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
5. Abuodeh Y, et al. Systematic review of case reports on the abscopal effect. Curr Probl Cancer. 2016;40(1):25–37.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
6. Postow MA, et al. Immunologic correlates of the abscopal effect in a patient with melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(10):925–931.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
7. D’Andrea MA, Reddy GK. Systemic antitumor effects and abscopal responses in melanoma patients receiving radiation therapy. Oncology. 2020;98(4):202–215.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
8. Chicas-Sett R, et al. Combining radiotherapy and ipilimumab induces clinically relevant radiation-induced abscopal effects in metastatic melanoma patients: a systematic review. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2018;9:5–11.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
9. McBride S, et al. Randomized phase II trial of nivolumab with stereotactic body radiotherapy versus nivolumab alone in metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2020;39(1):30–37.
   View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
10. Lieverse RIY, et al. Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) combined with immunotherapy (L19-IL2) versus standard of care in stage IV NSCLC patients, ImmunoSABR: a multicentre, randomised controlled open-label phase II trial. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):557.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
11. Bulbul A, Araujo-Mino E. Reasoning the effect of immunotherapy after chemoradiation in the PACIFIC trial. Future Oncol. 2019;15(1):81–94.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
12. Gajewski TF, et al. Innate and adaptive immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. Nat Immunol. 2013;14(10):1014–1022.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
13. Ji D, et al. Combination of radiotherapy and suppression of Tregs enhances abscopal antitumor effect and inhibits metastasis in rectal cancer. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(2):e000826.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
14. Boulle G, et al. Chemoradiotherapy efficacy is predicted by intra-tumour CD8+/FoxP3+ double positive T cell density in locally advanced N2 non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2020;135:221–229.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
15. Gounder MM, et al. Immunologic correlates of the abscopal effect in a SMARCB1/INI1-negative poorly differentiated chordoma after EZH2 inhibition and radiotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(7):2064–2071.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
16. Chen D, et al. Absolute lymphocyte count predicts abscopal responses and outcomes in patients receiving combined immunotherapy and radiation therapy: analysis of 3 phase 1/2 trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;108(1):196–203.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
17. Buchwald ZS, et al. Radiation, immune checkpoint blockade and the abscopal effect: a critical review on timing, dose and fractionation. Front Oncol. 2018;8:612.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
18. Popp I, et al. Immune modulation by hypofractionated stereotactic radiation therapy: therapeutic implications. Radiother Oncol. 2016;120(2):185–194.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
19. Watanabe T, et al. Deep abscopal response to radiotherapy and anti-PD-1 in an oligometastatic melanoma patient with unfavorable pretreatment immune signature. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2020;69(9):1823–1832.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
20. Morisada M, et al. PD-1 blockade reverses adaptive immune resistance induced by high-dose hypofractionated but not low-dose daily fractionated radiation. Oncoimmunology. 2018;7(3):e1395996.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
21. Dewan MZ, et al. Fractionated but not single-dose radiotherapy induces an immune-mediated abscopal effect when combined with anti-CTLA-4 antibody. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(17):5379–5388.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
22. Schaue D, et al. Maximizing tumor immunity with fractionated radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83(4):1306–1310.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
23. Kumari S, et al. Immunomodulatory effects of radiotherapy. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(21):8151.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
24. Zhao X, Shao C. Radiotherapy-mediated immunomodulation and anti-tumor abscopal effect combining immune checkpoint blockade. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(10):2762.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
25. Demaria S, et al. Ionizing radiation inhibition of distant untreated tumors (abscopal effect) is immune mediated. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;58(3):862–870.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
26. Lee Y, et al. Therapeutic effects of ablative radiation on local tumor require CD8+ T cells: changing strategies for cancer treatment. Blood. 2009;114(3):589–595.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
27. Liang H, et al. Radiation-induced equilibrium is a balance between tumor cell proliferation and T cell-mediated killing. J Immunol. 2013;190(11):5874–5881.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
28. Wells DK, et al. Key parameters of tumor epitope immunogenicity revealed through a consortium approach improve neoantigen prediction. Cell. 2020;183(3):818–834.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
29. Apetoh L, et al. Toll-like receptor 4-dependent contribution of the immune system to anticancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Nat Med. 2007;13(9):1050–1059.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
30. Burnette BC, et al. The efficacy of radiotherapy relies upon induction of type i interferon-dependent innate and adaptive immunity. Cancer Res. 2011;71(7):2488–2496.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
31. Fuertes MB, et al. Host type I IFN signals are required for antitumor CD8+ T cell responses through CD8α+ dendritic cells. J Exp Med. 2011;208(10):2005–2016.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
32. Reits EA, et al. Radiation modulates the peptide repertoire, enhances MHC class I expression, and induces successful antitumor immunotherapy. J Exp Med. 2006;203(5):1259–1271.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
33. Sharma A, et al. Radiotherapy of human sarcoma promotes an intratumoral immune effector signature. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(17):4843–4853.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
34. Rodriguez-Ruiz ME, et al. Abscopal effects of radiotherapy are enhanced by combined immunostimulatory mAbs and are dependent on CD8 T cells and crosspriming. Cancer Res. 2016;76(20):5994–6005.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
35. Buchwald ZS, et al. Tumor-draining lymph node is important for a robust abscopal effect stimulated by radiotherapy. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(2):e000867.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
36. Ferris ST, et al. cDC1 prime and are licensed by CD4⁺ T cells to induce anti-tumour immunity. Nature. 2020;584(7822):624–629.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
37. Fankhauser M, et al. Tumor lymphangiogenesis promotes T cell infiltration and potentiates immunotherapy in melanoma. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9(407):eaal4712.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
38. Song E, et al. VEGF-C-driven lymphatic drainage enables immunosurveillance of brain tumours. Nature. 2020;577(7792):689–694.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
39. Matsumura S, Demaria S. Up-regulation of the pro-inflammatory chemokine CXCL16 is a common response of tumor cells to ionizing radiation. Radiat Res. 2010;173(4):418–425.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
40. Matsumura S, et al. Radiation-induced CXCL16 release by breast cancer cells attracts effector T cells. J Immunol. 2008;181(5):3099–3107.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
41. Ganss R, et al. Combination of T-cell therapy and trigger of inflammation induces remodeling of the vasculature and tumor eradication. Cancer Res. 2002;62(5):1462–1470.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
42. Lees JR. CD8+ T cells: the past and future of immune regulation. Cell Immunol. 2020;357:104212.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
43. Fife BT, et al. Interactions between PD-1 and PD-L1 promote tolerance by blocking the TCR-induced stop signal. Nat Immunol. 2009;10(11):1185–1192.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
44. Freeman GJ, et al. Engagement of the PD-1 immunoinhibitory receptor by a novel B7 family member leads to negative regulation of lymphocyte activation. J Exp Med. 2000;192(7):1027–1034.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
45. Leach DR, et al. Enhancement of antitumor immunity by CTLA-4 blockade. Science. 1996;271(5256):1734–1736.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
46. Gordon S. Alternative activation of macrophages. Nat Rev Immunol. 2003;3(1):23–35.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
47. Mantovani A, et al. Macrophage polarization: tumor-associated macrophages as a paradigm for polarized M2 mononuclear phagocytes. Trends Immunol. 2002;23(11):549–555.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
48. Chen D, et al. SHP-2 and PD-L1 inhibition combined with radiotherapy enhances systemic antitumor effects in an anti-PD-1-resistant model of non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Immunol Res. 2020;8(7):883–894.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
49. Singh MP, et al. In-situ vaccination using focused ultrasound heating and anti-CD-40 agonistic antibody enhances T-cell mediated local and abscopal effects in murine melanoma. Int J Hyperthermia. 2019;36(suppl 1):64–73.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
50. Lobachevsky PN, et al. A functional immune system is required for the systemic genotoxic effects of localized irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;103(5):1184–1193.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
51. Ene CI, et al. Anti-PD-L1 antibody direct activation of macrophages contributes to a radiation-induced abscopal response in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2020;22(5):639–651.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
52. Golden EB, et al. Local radiotherapy and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor to generate abscopal responses in patients with metastatic solid tumours: a proof-of-principle trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(7):795–803.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
53. Xu F, et al. Tumor‑associated macrophages in lung cancer: friend or foe? (Review). Mol Med Rep. 2020;22(5):4107–4115.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
54. Lomax ME, et al. Biological consequences of radiation-induced DNA damage: relevance to radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2013;25(10):578–585.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
55. Panier S, Boulton SJ. Double-strand break repair: 53BP1 comes into focus. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2014;15(1):7–18.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
56. Sanjiv K, et al. Cancer-specific synthetic lethality between ATR and CHK1 kinase activities. Cell Rep. 2016;14(2):298–309.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
57. Hall AB, et al. Potentiation of tumor responses to DNA damaging therapy by the selective ATR inhibitor VX-970. Oncotarget. 2014;5(14):5674–5685.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
58. Lee S-B, et al. Tousled-like kinases stabilize replication forks and show synthetic lethality with checkpoint and PARP inhibitors. Sci Adv. 2018;4(8):eaat4985.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
59. Cavlar T, et al. Induction of type I IFNs by intracellular DNA-sensing pathways. Immunol Cell Biol. 2012;90(5):474–482.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
60. Hagan CR, Rudin CM. DNA cleavage and Trp53 differentially affect SINE transcription. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2007;46(3):248–260.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
61. Rudin CM, Thompson CB. Transcriptional activation of short interspersed elements by DNA-damaging agents. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2001;30(1):64–71.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
62. Yoneyama M, et al. Viral RNA detection by RIG-I-like receptors. Curr Opin Immunol. 2015;32:48–53.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
63. Kobayashi D, et al. Induction of micronuclei in cervical cancer treated with radiotherapy. J Pers Med. 2020;10(3):110.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
64. Vral A, et al. The micronucleus assay as a biological dosimeter of in vivo ionising radiation exposure. Mutagenesis. 2011;26(1):11–17.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
65. Pinto MMP de L, et al. Current status of biodosimetry based on standard cytogenetic methods. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2010;49(4):567–581.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
66. Wilhelm T, et al. Mild replication stress causes chromosome mis-segregation via premature centriole disengagement. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):3585.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
67. Thompson SL, Compton DA. Chromosome missegregation in human cells arises through specific types of kinetochore-microtubule attachment errors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(44):17974–17978.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
68. Liu S, et al. Nuclear envelope assembly defects link mitotic errors to chromothripsis. Nature. 2018;561(7724):551–555.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
69. Harding SM, et al. Mitotic progression following DNA damage enables pattern recognition within micronuclei. Nature. 2017;548(7668):466–470.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
70. MacKenzie KJ, et al. cGAS surveillance of micronuclei links genome instability to innate immunity. Nature. 2017;548(7668):461–465.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
71. Zierhut C, et al. The cytoplasmic DNA sensor cGAS promotes mitotic cell death. Cell. 2019;178(2):302–315.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
72. Pathare GR, et al. Structural mechanism of cGAS inhibition by the nucleosome. Nature. 2020;587(7835):668–672.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
73. Kujirai T, et al. Structural basis for the inhibition of cGAS by nucleosomes. Science. 2020;370(6515):455–458.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
74. Boyer JA, et al. Structural basis of nucleosome-dependent cGAS inhibition. Science. 2020;370(6515):450–454.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
75. Chen J, et al. Cell cycle checkpoints cooperate to suppress DNA- and RNA-associated molecular pattern recognition and anti-tumor immune responses. Cell Rep. 2020;32(9):108080.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
76. Sun L, et al. Cyclic GMP-AMP synthase is a cytosolic DNA sensor that activates the type I interferon pathway. Science. 2013;339(6121):786–791.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
77. Wu J, et al. Cyclic GMP-AMP is an endogenous second messenger in innate immune signaling by cytosolic DNA. Science. 2013;339(6121):826–830.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
78. Ablasser A, et al. cGAS produces a 2’-5’-linked cyclic dinucleotide second messenger that activates STING. Nature. 2013;498(7454):380–384.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
79. Ishikawa H, et al. STING regulates intracellular DNA-mediated, type I interferon-dependent innate immunity. Nature. 2009;461(7265):788–792.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
80. Deng L, et al. STING-dependent cytosolic DNA sensing promotes radiation-induced type I interferon-dependent antitumor immunity in immunogenic tumors. Immunity. 2014;41(5):843–852.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
81. Giampazolias E, et al. Mitochondrial permeabilization engages NF-κB-dependent anti-tumour activity under caspase deficiency. Nat Cell Biol. 2017;19(9):1116–1129.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
82. Xu MM, et al. Dendritic cells but not macrophages sense tumor mitochondrial DNA for cross-priming through signal regulatory protein α signaling. Immunity. 2017;47(2):363–373.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
83. West AP, et al. Mitochondrial DNA stress primes the antiviral innate immune response. Nature. 2015;520(7548):553–557.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
84. White MJ, et al. Apoptotic caspases suppress mtDNA-induced STING-mediated type I IFN production. Cell. 2014;159(7):1549–1562.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
85. Yamazaki T, et al. Mitochondrial DNA drives abscopal responses to radiation that are inhibited by autophagy. Nat Immunol. 2020;21(10):1160–1171.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
86. Coquel F, et al. SAMHD1 acts at stalled replication forks to prevent interferon induction. Nature. 2018;557(7703):57–61.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
87. Wolf C, et al. RPA and Rad51 constitute a cell intrinsic mechanism to protect the cytosol from self DNA. Nat Commun. 2016;7(1):11752.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
88. Bhattacharya S, et al. RAD51 interconnects between DNA replication, DNA repair and immunity. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45(8):4590–4605.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
89. Ishii KJ, et al. A Toll-like receptor-independent antiviral response induced by double-stranded B-form DNA. Nat Immunol. 2006;7(1):40–48.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
90. Vanpouille-Box C, et al. DNA exonuclease Trex1 regulates radiotherapy-induced tumour immunogenicity. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):15618.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
91. Nakahira K, et al. Autophagy proteins regulate innate immune responses by inhibiting the release of mitochondrial DNA mediated by the NALP3 inflammasome. Nat Immunol. 2011;12(3):222–230.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
92. Anindya R, et al. Damage-induced ubiquitylation of human RNA polymerase II by the ubiquitin ligase Nedd4, but not Cockayne syndrome proteins or BRCA1. Mol Cell. 2007;28(3):386–397.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
93. Pankotai T, et al. DNAPKcs-dependent arrest of RNA polymerase II transcription in the presence of DNA breaks. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2012;19(3):276–282.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
94. Shanbhag NM, et al. ATM-dependent chromatin changes silence transcription in cis to DNA double-strand breaks. Cell. 2010;141(6):970–981.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
95. Harding SM, et al. ATM dependent silencing links nucleolar chromatin reorganization to DNA damage recognition. Cell Rep. 2015;13(2):251–259.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
96. Larsen DH, et al. The NBS1–Treacle complex controls ribosomal RNA transcription in response to DNA damage. Nat Cell Biol. 2014;16(8):792–803.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
97. Kruhlak M, et al. The ATM repair pathway inhibits RNA polymerase I transcription in response to chromosome breaks. Nature. 2007;447(7145):730–734.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
98. van Sluis M, McStay B. A localized nucleolar DNA damage response facilitates recruitment of the homology-directed repair machinery independent of cell cycle stage. Genes Dev. 2015;29(11):1151–1163.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
99. Porro A, et al. Functional characterization of the TERRA transcriptome at damaged telomeres. Nat Commun. 2014;5(1):5379.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
100. Yoneyama M, Fujita T. Structural mechanism of RNA recognition by the RIG-I-like receptors. Immunity. 2008;29(2):178–181.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
101. Kawai T, Akira S. Innate immune recognition of viral infection. Nat Immunol. 2006;7(2):131–137.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
102. Michallet M-C, et al. TRADD protein is an essential component of the RIG-like helicase antiviral pathway. Immunity. 2008;28(5):651–661.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
103. Takeuchi O, Akira S. Pattern recognition receptors and inflammation. Cell. 2010;140(6):805–820.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
104. Kim Y, et al. PKR is activated by cellular dsRNAs during mitosis and acts as a mitotic regulator. Genes Dev. 2014;28(12):1310–1322.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
105. Ahmad S, et al. Breaching self-tolerance to Alu Duplex RNA underlies MDA5-mediated inflammation. Cell. 2018;172(4):797–810.e13.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
106. Dhir A, et al. Mitochondrial double-stranded RNA triggers antiviral signalling in humans. Nature. 2018;560(7717):238–242.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
107. Xian H, et al. Stratified ubiquitination of RIG-I creates robust immune response and induces selective gene expression. Sci Adv. 2017;3(9):e1701764.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
108. Nabet BY, et al. Exosome RNA unshielding couples stromal activation to pattern recognition receptor signaling in cancer. Cell. 2017;170(2):352–366.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
109. Feng X, et al. ATR inhibition potentiates ionizing radiation-induced interferon response via cytosolic nucleic acid-sensing pathways. EMBO J. 2020;39(14):e104036.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
110. Lucarini V, et al. Combining type I interferons and 5-aza-2’-deoxycitidine to improve anti-tumor response against melanoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2017;137(1):159–169.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
111. Mehdipour P, et al. Epigenetic therapy induces transcription of inverted SINEs and ADAR1 dependency. Nature. 2020;588(7836):169–173.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
112. Ishizuka JJ, et al. Loss of ADAR1 in tumours overcomes resistance to immune checkpoint blockade. Nature. 2019;565(7737):43–48.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
113. Szewczyk M, et al. Human REXO2 controls short mitochondrial RNAs generated by mtRNA processing and decay machinery to prevent accumulation of double-stranded RNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48(10):5572–5590.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
114. Wiatrek DM, et al. Activation of innate immunity by mitochondrial dsRNA in mouse cells lacking p53 protein. RNA. 2019;25(6):713–726.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
115. Lin H-Y, et al. 5-Aza-2’-deoxycytidine induces a RIG-I-related innate immune response by modulating mitochondria stress in neuroblastoma. Cells. 2020;9(9):1920.
     View this article via: CrossRef Google Scholar
116. Formenti SC, Demaria S. Combining radiotherapy and cancer immunotherapy: a paradigm shift. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(4):256–265.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
117. Zhou D, et al. Effects of NF-kappaB1 (p50) targeted gene disruption on ionizing radiation-induced NF-kappaB activation and TNFalpha, IL-1alpha, IL-1beta and IL-6 mRNA expression in vivo. Int J Radiat Biol. 2001;77(7):763–772.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
118. Linard C, et al. Acute induction of inflammatory cytokine expression after gamma-irradiation in the rat: effect of an NF-kappaB inhibitor. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;58(2):427–434.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
119. Hellweg CE. The nuclear factor κB pathway: a link to the immune system in the radiation response. Cancer Lett. 2015;368(2):275–289.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
120. Sakaguchi S, et al. Essential role of IRF-3 in lipopolysaccharide-induced interferon-beta gene expression and endotoxin shock. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003;306(4):860–866.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
121. Ishikawa H, Barber GN. STING is an endoplasmic reticulum adaptor that facilitates innate immune signalling. Nature. 2008;455(7213):674–678.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
122. Schiavoni G, et al. Type I interferons as stimulators of DC-mediated cross-priming: impact on anti-tumor response. Front Immunol. 2013;4:483.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
123. Marié I, et al. Differential viral induction of distinct interferon-alpha genes by positive feedback through interferon regulatory factor-7. EMBO J. 1998;17(22):6660–6669.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
124. Honda K, et al. Type I inteferon gene induction by the interferon regulatory factor family of transcription factors. Immunity. 2006;25(3):349–360.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
125. Turajlic S, et al. Insertion-and-deletion-derived tumour-specific neoantigens and the immunogenic phenotype: a pan-cancer analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(8):1009–1021.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
126. McGranahan N, et al. Clonal neoantigens elicit T cell immunoreactivity and sensitivity to immune checkpoint blockade. Science. 2016;351(6280):1463–1469.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
127. Boulianne B, Feldhahn N. Transcribing malignancy: transcription-associated genomic instability in cancer. Oncogene. 2018;37(8):971–981.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
128. Verma P, Greenberg RA. Noncanonical views of homology-directed DNA repair. Genes Dev. 2016;30(10):1138–1154.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
129. Cann KL, Hicks GG. Regulation of the cellular DNA double-strand break response. Biochem Cell Biol. 2007;85(6):663–674.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
130. Higgins GS, Boulton SJ. Beyond PARP-POLθ as an anticancer target. Science. 2018;359(6381):1217–1218.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
131. Gopanenko AV, et al. Main strategies for the identification of neoantigens. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(10):2879.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
132. Kakoti S, et al. DNA repair and signaling in immune-related cancer therapy. Front Mol Biosci. 2020;7:205.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
133. Yousefzadeh MJ, et al. Mechanism of suppression of chromosomal instability by DNA polymerase POLQ. PLoS Genet. 2014;10(10):e1004654.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
134. Mateos-Gomez PA, et al. Mammalian polymerase θ promotes alternative NHEJ and suppresses recombination. Nature. 2015;518(7538):254–257.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
135. Tomlins SA, et al. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science. 2005;310(5748):644–648.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
136. Kalina JL, et al. Mutational analysis of gene fusions predicts novel MHC class I-restricted T-cell epitopes and immune signatures in a subset of prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(24):7596–7607.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
137. Shan L, et al. TMPRSS2-ERG fusion promotes recruitment of regulatory T cells and tumor growth in prostate cancer. Am J Med Sci. 2018;356(1):72–78.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
138. de Assis LVM, et al. Expression of the circadian clock gene BMAL1 positively correlates with antitumor immunity and patient survival in metastatic melanoma. Front Oncol. 2018;8:185.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
139. Boulianne B, et al. Lineage-specific genes are prominent DNA damage hotspots during leukemic transformation of B cell precursors. Cell Rep. 2017;18(7):1687–1698.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
140. Sattler M, Griffin JD. Molecular mechanisms of transformation by the BCR-ABL oncogene. Semin Hematol. 2003;40(2 suppl 2):4–10.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
141. Sun C, et al. Pathogenesis of ETV6/RUNX1-positive childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia and mechanisms underlying its relapse. Oncotarget. 2017;8(21):35445–35459.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
142. Wölfel T, et al. A p16INK4a-insensitive CDK4 mutant targeted by cytolytic T lymphocytes in a human melanoma. Science. 1995;269(5228):1281–1284.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
143. Coulie PG, et al. A mutated intron sequence codes for an antigenic peptide recognized by cytolytic T lymphocytes on a human melanoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995;92(17):7976–7980.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
144. Matsushita H, et al. Cancer exome analysis reveals a T-cell-dependent mechanism of cancer immunoediting. Nature. 2012;482(7385):400–404.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
145. Prickett TD, et al. Durable complete response from metastatic melanoma after transfer of autologous T cells recognizing 10 mutated tumor antigens. Cancer Immunol Res. 2016;4(8):669–678.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
146. van Rooij N, et al. Tumor exome analysis reveals neoantigen-specific T-cell reactivity in an ipilimumab-responsive melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(32):e439–e442.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
147. Leoni G, et al. A genetic vaccine encoding shared cancer neoantigens to treat tumors with microsatellite instability. Cancer Res. 2020;80(18):3972–3982.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
148. Lizardo DY, et al. Immunotherapy efficacy on mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer: from bench to bedside. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 2020;1874(2):188447.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
149. Sena LA, et al. Tumor frameshift mutation proportion predicts response to immunotherapy in mismatch repair-deficient prostate cancer. Oncologist. 2021;26(2):e270–e278.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
150. Lu C, et al. DNA sensing in mismatch repair-deficient tumor cells is essential for anti-tumor immunity. Cancer Cell. 2021;39(1):96–108.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
151. Guan J, et al. MLH1 deficiency-triggered DNA hyperexcision by exonuclease 1 activates the cGAS-STING pathway. Cancer Cell. 2021;39(1):109–121.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
152. Zhao P, et al. Mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability-high as a predictor for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy efficacy. J Hematol Oncol. 2019;12(1):54.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
153. Roudko V, et al. Shared immunogenic poly-epitope frameshift mutations in microsatellite unstable tumors. Cell. 2020;183(6):1634–1649.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
154. Hwang T, et al. Defining the mutation signatures of DNA polymerase θ in cancer genomes. NAR Cancer. 2020;2(3):zcaa017.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
155. Bhargava R, et al. C-NHEJ without indels is robust and requires synergistic function of distinct XLF domains. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):2484.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
156. Frankiw L, et al. Alternative mRNA splicing in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol. 2019;19(11):675–687.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
157. Ramanjulu JM, et al. Design of amidobenzimidazole STING receptor agonists with systemic activity. Nature. 2018;564(7736):439–443.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
158. Su T, et al. STING activation in cancer immunotherapy. Theranostics. 2019;9(25):7759–7771.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
159. Pan B-S, et al. An orally available non-nucleotide STING agonist with antitumor activity. Science. 2020;369(6506):eaba6098.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
160. Ager CR, et al. Intratumoral STING activation with T-cell checkpoint modulation generates systemic antitumor immunity. Cancer Immunol Res. 2017;5(8):676–684.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
161. Corrales L, et al. Direct activation of STING in the tumor microenvironment leads to potent and systemic tumor regression and immunity. Cell Rep. 2015;11(7):1018–1030.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
162. Fu J, et al. STING agonist formulated cancer vaccines can cure established tumors resistant to PD-1 blockade. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(283):283ra52.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
163. Conlon J, et al. Mouse, but not human STING, binds and signals in response to the vascular disrupting agent 5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid. J Immunol. 2013;190(10):5216–5225.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
164. Prantner D, et al. 5,6-Dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid (DMXAA) activates stimulator of interferon gene (STING)-dependent innate immune pathways and is regulated by mitochondrial membrane potential. J Biol Chem. 2012;287(47):39776–39788.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
165. Le Naour J, et al. Trial watch: STING agonists in cancer therapy. Oncoimmunology. 2020;9(1):1777624.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
166. Müller E, et al. Both type I and type II interferons can activate antitumor M1 macrophages when combined with TLR stimulation. Front Immunol. 2018;9:2520.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
167. Braunstein MJ, et al. Targeting toll-like receptors for cancer therapy. Target Oncol. 2018;13(5):583–598.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
168. Dajon M, et al. Toll-like receptor stimulation in cancer: a pro- and anti-tumor double-edged sword. Immunobiology. 2017;222(1):89–100.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
169. Urban-Wojciuk Z, et al. The role of TLRs in anti-cancer immunity and tumor rejection. Front Immunol. 2019;10:2388.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
170. Burn OK, et al. Modulating the tumour microenvironment by intratumoural injection of pattern recognition receptor agonists. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(12):3824.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
171. Bakhoum SF, et al. Chromosomal instability drives metastasis through a cytosolic DNA response. Nature. 2018;553(7689):467–472.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
172. Pardi N, et al. Recent advances in mRNA vaccine technology. Curr Opin Immunol. 2020;65:14–20.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar