Journal of Oncology

Journal of Oncology / 2019 / Article
Special Issue

Resistance to Immunotherapy: A Challenge of Cancer Treatment

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2019 |Article ID 2084195 | 12 pages |

Targeting L-Lactate Metabolism to Overcome Resistance to Immune Therapy of Melanoma and Other Tumor Entities

Academic Editor: Xuelei Ma
Received09 May 2019
Revised13 Aug 2019
Accepted10 Sep 2019
Published03 Nov 2019


Although immunotherapy plays a significant role in tumor therapy, its efficacy is impaired by an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. A molecule that contributes to the protumor microenvironment is the metabolic product lactate. Lactate is produced in large amounts by cancer cells in response to either hypoxia or pseudohypoxia, and its presence in excess alters the normal functioning of immune cells. A key enzyme involved in lactate metabolism is lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Elevated baseline LDH serum levels are associated with poor outcomes of current anticancer (immune) therapies, especially in patients with melanoma. Therefore, targeting LDH and other molecules involved in lactate metabolism might improve the efficacy of immune therapies. This review summarizes current knowledge about lactate metabolism and its role in the tumor microenvironment. Based on that information, we develop a rationale for deploying drugs that target lactate metabolism in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors to overcome lactate-mediated immune escape of tumor cells.

1. Introduction

Long regarded as merely a metabolic waste product, there is now growing evidence that L-lactate produced in excess by cancer cells favors tumor growth and metastasis. L-Lactate exerts this tumorigenic effect, at least in part, by disrupting the normal antitumor function of certain immune cells to create an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. This has important therapeutic implications because the localized immunosuppression blunts the efficacy of anticancer immunotherapies. Thus, in principle, targeting lactate metabolism could be a strategy to bolster the effectiveness of cancer therapies and improve patient outcomes. Before delving into these therapeutic possibilities, we begin with an overview of lactate metabolism, especially as it relates to energy production in cancer cells.

2. L-Lactate Biochemistry, Sources, and Transport

Lactate (2-hydroxypropanoate) is a hydroxycarboxylic acid. Two stereoisomers exist, L-lactate and D-lactate. L-Lactate is the predominant enantiomer in the human body [1]. L-Lactate is either produced or removed by a reversible oxidoreduction reaction catalyzed by the enzyme L-lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Pyruvate is reduced to L-lactate, while reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH) is oxidized to NAD+ [2]. High levels of the LDHA isoform are found in muscles and tumors [3]. The two main sources of L-lactate in humans are pyruvate and alanine [4]. L-Lactate is the end-product of glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway [5]. Oxidation of L-lactate into pyruvate by LDH in the cytosol is the first step in L-lactate clearance. Lactate metabolism is a highly dynamic and tissue-specific process [6]. L-Lactate transport is mainly executed by monocarboxylate transporters (MCT1, MCT2, and MCT4) (Figure 1). MCT4 is responsible for excretion, whereas MCT1 and MCT2 work in both directions [7, 8]. In addition, two sodium-coupled monocarboxylate transporters, SMCT1 (SLC5A8) and SMCT2 (SLC5A12), mediate the cellular uptake of L-lactate [912]. While certain cell types excrete L-lactate, other cell types preferentially take it up, e.g., neurons and glial cells, respectively [6]. The same is true of tumor cells, tumor stem cells, tumor-associated fibroblasts, and immune cells, which provides the basis for the formation of lactate-rich tumor niches and microenvironments that are highly inimical to therapy. Moreover, it has also been proposed that lactate facilitates metastasis via creation of a microenvironment toxic to normal cells by stimulating tissue lysis [13, 14].

3. The Warburg Effect

The Warburg effect describes the phenomenon, wherein cancer cells generate energy predominantly via glycolysis even if sufficient oxygen for respiration is present (Figure 1). But why would tumors use inefficient glycolysis instead of oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) for energy production? There are several reasons which may explain this reprogramming of ATP generation.

In normal cells, one molecule of glucose produces 38 molecules of ATP during complete oxidation in mitochondria. In cancer cells, pyruvate oxidation is downregulated and replaced by lactate production, catalyzed by LDH, without ATP generation. Thus, in tumor cells, one molecule of glucose produces only two molecules of ATP [1517]. However, aerobic glycolysis might not be as inefficient as often reported. The production of L-lactate from glucose occurs 10–100 times faster than the complete oxidation in mitochondria and the amount of ATP production is similar per unit of time [18]. The Warburg effect has been proposed to be an adaptive mechanism to support the biosynthetic requirements of uncontrolled proliferation. Glucose serves as a carbon source for anabolic processes. The excess carbon is diverted into branching pathways emanating from glycolysis and is used for the generation of building blocks such as nucleotides, lipids, and proteins [7, 16, 19, 20]. Another theory proposes that tumors shut down OXPHOS to reduce the damage caused by reactive oxygen species (ROS) while maintaining a level necessary for signaling, e.g., especially important for chromatin metabolism [20].

4. Other Models

In addition to the classic Warburg hypothesis, other models have been proposed. The two primary ones are the reverse Warburg effect and the lactate shuttle hypothesis (several additional models are more or less variations of these two hypotheses). An important feature of these two models is that they take into consideration cell-cell interactions, tumor microenvironment, and compartmentalization.

In 2009, a novel “two-compartment metabolic coupling” model, also named “the reverse Warburg effect,” was proposed [21, 22]. In this model, epithelial cancer cells induce the Warburg effect (aerobic glycolysis) in neighboring stromal fibroblasts. Cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) then undergo myofibroblastic differentiation and secrete lactate and pyruvate. Epithelial tumor cells are able to take up these energy-rich metabolites and use them in the mitochondrial tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, thereby promoting efficient energy production (i.e., ATP generation via OXPHOS) [22].

The intracellular lactate shuttle hypothesis posits that lactate formed during glycolysis can be continuously used as an energy source within mitochondria of the same cell [23]. The intercellular or cell-cell lactate shuttle hypothesis proposes that lactate generated and exported from one cell can be taken up and utilized by another cell. The latter mechanism was described for neurons and astrocytes [24]. Several articles report that lactate can reach mitochondria via diffusion. LDH in the mitochondrial intermembrane space (IMS) generates NADH used by malate dehydrogenase, which converts oxaloacetate to malate. The malate-α-ketoglutarate (α-KG) antiporter (SLC25A11) transports malate into the mitochondrial matrix in exchange for α-KG that is transported to the IMS, where it is metabolized to glutamate by the enzyme aspartate aminotransferase (AAT). In addition, oxaloacetate is generated from aspartate. The aspartate in the IMS comes from the glutamate aspartate antiporter (SLC25A12 and SLC25A13). The glutamate in the matrix is metabolized to aspartate and the oxaloacetate to α-KG by AAT [23, 24].

5. Role of Hypoxia

A major player in the glycolytic response to hypoxia is the transcription factor hypoxia-inducible factor-1 α (HIF-1α) [25]. Following hypoxia-induced stabilization, HIF-1α mediates a pleiotropic reaction to hypoxia by inducing a plethora of genes, including glucose transporters, angiogenic growth factors (e.g., vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)), hexokinase II [26], and hematopoietic factors (e.g., transferrin and erythropoietin) [27]. Radioresistance, immune escape, and secretion of VEGF were reported to be linked to L-lactate accumulation [2830]. Not surprisingly, MCTs are regulated by hypoxia and/or HIF-1α [31, 32]. Carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX) is overexpressed in VHL-mutated clear renal cell carcinomas and hypoxic solid tumors [33, 34]. This enzyme catalyzes the reversible hydration of carbon monoxide and is thus involved in regulation of intracellular pH. CAIX is induced by HIF-1α [34]. Importantly, CAIX is considered to be a very reliable marker of hypoxic areas in tissue, whereas HIF-1α is not [35]. Hypoxia might not be important for melanomas. Although numerous articles describe changes of melanoma metabolism and behavior under hypoxic conditions, hypoxia in melanoma might not be present in vivo. CAIX is not expressed in the vast majority of melanocytic tumors although when it is expressed it is associated with worse overall survival (OS) [3638]. Xu and colleagues likewise concluded that melanomas are not under hypoxic stress [39]. Although HIF-1α is induced by low oxygen, many other pathways can regulate HIF-1α in an oxygen-independent manner. The high HIF-1α expression observed in melanomas might be linked to increased lactate production. In other words, lactate may stimulate HIF expression independently of hypoxia [4042]. In addition, the majority of the melanomas studied showed high OXPHOS enzyme expression, which suggests that they are OXPHOS competent. This is consistent with previous studies reporting that melanomas utilize OXPHOS in addition to glycolysis [39]. Therefore, functioning mitochondria in melanomas might be needed for oxidation of lactate produced by glycolysis.

A functioning OXPHOS system only makes sense if oxygen is present. Therefore, the majority of melanomas may be regarded as tumors that do not follow the classic Warburg rules. Several oxygen-independent pathways that regulate HIF-1α were identified in melanomas. Under normoxic conditions, HIF-1α can be stabilized by various growth factors, cytokines and oncogenes, as shown for BRAFV600E in melanoma [43]. HIF-1α was also identified as a microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (MITF) target [4345]. Many factors important for neoangiogenesis are hypoxia-independent in melanomas [43]. A significant increase of LDHA expression was present in all melanomas. In addition, MCT4 was increased in single cells and areas of the melanomas, suggesting that shuttling of lactate does indeed occur [36]. However, the lactate shuttle hypothesis is still a matter of debate since the presence of LDH and MCT1 in mitochondria is questioned [46, 47]. Increased expression of SLC25A11 was reported for melanomas in a proteomics study that analyzed 61 primary melanomas [48].

6. L-Lactate as a Biomarker in Melanoma and Other Neoplasms

As early as 1954, increased levels of LDH were detected in serum of melanoma patients [49]. Baseline serum LDH has been established as an independent prognostic factor for survival and since 2009 has been included in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system [50, 51]. Elevated serum LDH is also a strong negative predictor of survival in patients with other hematologic and solid neoplasms [52]. Pretreatment LDH levels represent a clinically significant factor associated with response, progression-free survival (PFS), and OS in targeted therapy and immune checkpoint therapy with anti-CTLA-4- and/or anti-PD1-antibodies in melanoma patients [5257]. High pretreatment LDH levels are also significantly associated with shorter PFS and OS in patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors [58].

7. Lactate and the Tumor Microenvironment

Lactate has begun to be recognized as an active molecule capable of modulating the immune response. Tumor-derived lactate modulates the functionality of immune cells, contributing to the establishment of an immunosuppressive microenvironment which favors the development of tumors [5961] (Figure 1). Inflammatory sites are characterized by an accumulation of lactate, which is partly responsible for the establishment of an acidic environment [62]. However, a recent review questions the presence of relevant lactate levels and its impact on immune cells in the tumor microenvironment [63].

7.1. Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are a heterogeneous population of immature myeloid cells and play a crucial role in mediating immunosuppressive effects in the tumor microenvironment [64]. MDSCs suppress both innate and adaptive immunity by preventing the maturation of dendritic cells (DCs), suppressing natural killer (NK) cell cytotoxicity, inhibiting T cell activation, and favoring the differentiation of regulatory T cells [59, 60]. Tumor-derived lactate promotes the development of MDSCs [65]. One possible mechanism of suppression of NK cell function is through the induction of natural killer group-2 member D (NKG2D) ligands in tumor-infiltrating myeloid cells and circulating monocytes via tumor-derived LDH, which downregulates the activating NKG2D receptor on NK cells [28].

7.2. Tumor-Associated Macrophages

Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) are one of the most abundant cells in the tumor stroma and contribute to tumor progression at different levels [66]. Tumor-derived lactate drives macrophage polarization toward a tumor-promoting phenotype in mice [67], where HIF-1α-dependent lactate-induced expression of arginase 1 and VEGF might also contribute to immunosuppression and tumor evasion [6769]. Similarly, lactate from human cervical cancer cell lines caused polarization of macrophages to an immunosuppressive phenotype [70]. Lactic acid secreted from tumor cells enhances IL-23 production in murine and human macrophages [71], which contributes to the development of protumor immunity [72]. Moreover, pretreatment of bone marrow-derived murine macrophages with lactic acid inhibited proliferation of CD8+ T cells [73]. Macrophages can sense lactate secreted from tumor cells via the G-protein-coupled receptors GPR132 (also known as G2A) and GPR81 (also known as hydroxycarboxylic acid receptor 1 (HCAR-1)) and respond with immunosuppressive activity [74, 75]. Both lactate and LDH in the tumor microenvironment can facilitate the protumor activity of TAMs [76].

7.3. Dendritic Cells and Monocytes

Some subsets of functionally distinct DC populations in the tumor microenvironment display a tolerogenic and immune suppressive phenotype [77]. High lactic acid concentrations in the tumor microenvironment possibly skew the differentiation of DCs to an immunosuppressive phenotype with increased production of IL-10 and loss of IL-12 [78, 79]. Furthermore, lactate inhibited the differentiation and lipopolysaccharide (LPS)‐induced maturation of human monocyte-derived DCs [80]. Lactate also delayed the expression or suppressed the production of proinflammatory cytokines like TNF-alpha and IL-6 in LPS-stimulated human monocytes [81, 82]. The presence of lactic acid rendered tumor-associated DCs tolerogenic and led to concentration-dependent inhibition of T cell proliferation [78]. Lactate also promoted the synthesis of prostaglandin E2 and upregulation of COX2 in monocytes, both of which are involved in tumor progression and the development of therapeutic resistance [83, 84].

7.4. T Cells

Several studies demonstrate that lactate negatively affects tumor immunosurveillance by T cells. Lactate suppressed the proliferation and function of murine and human cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) in vitro [8587]. The presence of lactate in an acidic environment has been shown to selectively target p38 and c-Jun N-terminal kinase activation, resulting in inhibition of IFN-γ production in CTLs [88]. Impairment of IL-2- and IFN-γ-production by CTLs in vitro was observed following incubation with either externally added or tumor-derived lactic acid [86, 89]. Lactic acid also impairs the recruitment of CTLs to the tumor microenvironment by blocking their motility [90]. Notably, a significant decrease in intratumoral CTLs was associated with high circulating LDH levels in patients with diffuse-large B cell lymphoma [91]. Lactic acid also diminishes the cytotoxic activity of CTLs by lowering the intracellular amounts of perforin and granzyme B and reducing lytic granule exocytosis [86, 88].

Murine tumors with reduced lactic acid production caused by Ldha knockdown showed significantly slower growth rates and greater infiltration by functionally active CTLs compared to control tumors in immunocompetent mice [85]. Importantly, a lactate-rich tumor microenvironment not only impairs effector T cells via LDH but also fosters the development of regulatory T cells to promote immune evasion by tumor cells [92].

7.5. Natural Killer Cells and Natural Killer T Cells

NK cells are part of the innate tumor immune surveillance system, but their contribution is diminished by the presence of lactic acid in an acidic tumor microenvironment [92]. Similar to its effect on T cells, lactic acid prevented the upregulation of the nuclear factor of activated T cells (NFAT) in NK cells, resulting in decreased IFN-γ production [92] and reduced cytotoxic activity [65]. Blocking the lactate flux by inhibition of MCT4 enhanced the cytotoxicity of NK cells in a murine model of breast cancer [93]. Conversely, lactate-mediated acidification of the tumor microenvironment induced apoptosis of NK cells, resulting in their depletion from human colorectal liver metastases [94]. A high-lactate microenvironment is also detrimental to the proliferation, survival, and effector function of NKT cells [95], which are important mediators of overcoming immune exhaustion in the tumor microenvironment [96].

7.6. Other Cell Types

Cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) are a dynamic component of the tumor microenvironment. These cells modulate the interaction between tumor cells and the host stromal response, and CAF-associated metabolic reprogramming can facilitate tumor progression [97]. Secreted lactate drives CAFs to produce hepatocyte growth factor [98], which can attenuate the activity of DCs and CTLs and promote the induction of regulatory T cells [99, 100]. Lactate also increases hyaluronan production in fibroblasts [101], and elevated hyaluronan levels in the tumor microenvironment have been linked to cancer progression and unfavorable outcomes [102, 103].

Endothelial cells are another cell type involved in the crosstalk with tumor cells in the tumor microenvironment [104]. Human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) have been shown to respond to lactate with enhanced production of VEGF and upregulation of several receptor tyrosine kinases, including VEGF receptor 2, thereby promoting angiogenesis [105107]. The phosphoinositide 3-kinase/Akt and NF-ϰB/IL-8 signaling pathways have been reported to be involved in mediating the proangiogenic activity of HUVECs [107, 108].

8. Possible Targets of Lactate Metabolism and Their Potential to Improve Immunotherapy Outcomes

Due to the multitude of effects of lactate in promoting immune evasion of tumors and stimulating tumor angiogenesis, targeting lactate metabolism in combination with immunotherapy is a promising approach to enhance the efficacy of immune therapies. This was recently demonstrated in a murine melanoma model, where blockage of LDHA not only increased the number of NK cells and CTLs but also augmented their cytolytic activity, resulting in reduced melanoma growth in combination with antiprogrammed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) therapy in comparison with PD-1 therapy alone [109]. In addition to LDH, there are other attractive molecules to target to interfere with lactate metabolism; these are described in detail below.

8.1. LDH

Although genetic disruption or silencing of LDHA was shown to inhibit tumor growth in vitro and in vivo in several studies [2, 110112], it has been suggested that only disruption of LDHA and LDHB together can abolish the growth of tumor cell lines in vitro [113, 114].

Several LDH inhibitors have been tested preclinically for anticancer activity, but the majority of them have low potency and off-target effects and therefore are not suitable for clinical use [3].

Oxamate, a known LDH inhibitor for more than 60 years [115], is the most widely used substance for LDH inhibition in preclinical studies. However, due to its activity in the millimolar range, it has never been used in clinical trials [113, 116].

Quinoline-3-sulfonamides have been shown to have antitumor activity, but their clinical use is hampered by their poor bioavailability [112, 117].

A 2-amino-5-aryl pyrazine and a 2-thio-6-oxo-1,6-dihydropyrimidine were identified as potent inhibitors of human LDH, but they showed only minimal cellular activity in cancer cells [118, 119]. Modification of small molecule LDH inhibitors led to the development of the potent LDH inhibitor GNE-140, which inhibited murine B16 melanoma as well as human adenocarcinoma and pancreatic carcinoma cells in vitro dependent on their metabolic activity [114, 120].

Other drugs which target LDH by different mechanisms and exhibit preclinical antiproliferative activity against cancer cell lines, such as galloflavin [121, 122], FX11 [2], and N-hydroxyindole-2-carboxylate- [123, 124], and pyrazole-based inhibitors of LDH [125], have never been used clinically.

Recently, molecules with 1,4-triazole moieties have been reported as potent inhibitors of LDH, but they have not been tested for anticancer activity [126].

Several natural products, including the saffron derivative crocetin, have been identified as LDH inhibitors with antiproliferative activity against cancer cell lines [127].

Gossypol (also known as AT-101), derived from cotton plant seeds, is a nonselective inhibitor of LDH whose antitumor activity has been attributed to its additional capability to inhibit the antiapoptotic Bcl-2 protein family [128]. Gossypol has been tested in several phase I and phase II clinical trials in various tumor types either as a monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy but produced negligible response rates in the majority of studies. Despite the multiple biological properties of gossypol, oral doses up to 40 mg per day were tolerated [129134].

Oroxylin A, a bioactive flavonoid isolated from a Chinese medicinal plant, inhibited LDH and the production of lactate in human hepatocellular carcinoma cells [135]. However, the broadly reported anticancer activity of oroxylin A, including its inhibitory action on the generation of regulatory T cells in the tumor microenvironment of non‐small cell lung cancer, appears to involve multiple targets and pathways [136, 137].

A recent high-throughput screen of 1280 drugs identified vitamin C as an LDH-lowering agent, which reduced lactate production and inhibited tumor growth of breast cancer cells in a chronic stress model [138].

There are several drugs currently approved for clinical use which could potentially be repurposed as LDH inhibitors such as the antiepileptic drug stiripentol [139] or the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) diclofenac and lumiracoxib [140].

8.2. MCTs

As knockdown of the lactate transporters MCT1 and MCT4 resulted in suppression of breast cancer and colorectal cancer in vitro and in vivo [141, 142], targeting MCTs has also been included in therapeutic strategies. Accordingly, analogs of α-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid [143] as well as derivatives of 7-aminocarboxycoumarins [144] have been reported as MCT1 inhibitors with remarkable antitumor activity in vitro and in vivo. While some MCT1-inhibiting small molecules have been described as immunosuppressive compounds [145], a small molecule inhibitor of MCT1, AZD3965, has shown preclinical antitumor properties in several hematological tumors [146] and small cell lung cancer [147]. The compound has also entered a phase I trial (NCT01791595) in patients with advanced solid tumors or lymphoma, but no results of this trial have been published to date.

For MCT4, diclofenac [148] and bindarit (2-[(1-benzyl-1H-indazol-3-yl)methoxy]-2-methylpropanoic acid) [149] have been reported as selective inhibitors. Because the efficacy of the MCT4 inhibitor AZ93 to block the growth of various cancer cell lines was dependent of MCT1 inhibition [8], it is likely that only concurrent inhibition of MCT1 and MCT4 can impair tumor growth, especially under hypoxic conditions. Syrosingopine was recently identified as a dual inhibitor of MCT1 and MCT4 with potential antitumor benefits in vivo [150]. There is evidence that lonidamine, a well-tolerated anticancer drug which is particularly effective at selectively sensitizing tumors to other therapies, might also be capable of concurrently inhibiting MCT1 and MCT4 [151, 152].

8.3. GPR81

GPR81 (HCAR-1) is a lactate-sensing receptor found on monocytes and other immune cells [75, 153] and also on certain cancer cells. In the latter, GPR81 activation promotes proliferation, invasion [154], chemoresistance [155], and upregulation of programmed cell death protein 1-ligand (PD-L1) [156]. Knockdown of GPR81 in mice diminished the production of IL-10 and suppressed the generation of regulatory T cells [75]. Furthermore, silencing of GPR81 in tumor cells led to reduced PD-L1 expression [156] and attenuation of growth and metastatic potential [157]. These interesting findings elevate GPR81 as another target in lactate metabolism to be included in tumor therapy approaches.

9. Conclusion

The Warburg effect and altered tumor metabolism have been recognized as a hallmark of cancer for nearly a century. Lactate is one of the key “oncometabolites” regulating the interaction of cancer cells with the tumor microenvironment. Since elevated serum LDH is negatively associated with clinical efficacy of anticancer (immune) therapies, targeting this enzyme or other molecules involved in lactate metabolism clearly has potential to improve patient outcomes. Although several LDH inhibitors lack selectivity and clinical efficacy in monotherapy, there may be strong potential in combining them with immunotherapy, especially in patients with high LDH levels. Possible off-target effects (either beneficial or toxic) would need to be assessed. Repurposing of approved drugs which can inhibit LDH and have been well tolerated in clinical trials could circumvent toxicity concerns. Besides inhibition of LDH, there are other key molecules involved in lactate metabolism which could be targeted to overcome resistance to immune therapy.


AAT:Aspartate aminotransferase
AJCC:American Joint Committee on Cancer
Akt:Protein kinase B
ATP:Adenosine triphosphate
Bcl-2:B cell lymphoma 2
BRAF:v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B
CAF:Cancer-associated fibroblast
CAIX:Carbonic anhydrase IX
COX2:Cyclooxygenase 2
CTL:Cytotoxic T lymphocyte
CTLA-4:Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4
DC:Dendritic cell
GPR81:G-protein coupled receptor 81
GPR132 (also known as G2A):G-protein coupled receptor 132
HCAR-1:Hydroxycarboxylic acid receptor 1
HIF-1α:Hypoxia-inducible factor-1α
HUVEC:Human umbilical vein endothelial cell
IMS:Intermembrane space
LDH:Lactate dehydrogenase
MCT1:Monocarboxylate transporter 1
MCT2:Monocarboxylate transporter 2
MCT4:Monocarboxylate transporter 4
MDSC:Myeloid-derived suppressor cell
MITF:Microphthalmia-associated transcription factor
NADH:Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide
NFAT:Nuclear factor of activated T cells
NF-ϰB:Nuclear factor “kappa-light-chain-enhancer” of activated B cells
NK cell:Natural killer cell
NKG2D:Natural killer group 2 member D
OS:Overall survival
OXPHOS:Oxidative phosphorylation
PD1:Programmed cell death protein 1
PFS:Progression-free survival
ROS:Reactive oxygen species
SLC25A11:Solute carrier family 25 member 11 (malate-α-ketoglutarate antiporter)
SLC25A12:Solute carrier family 25 member 12 (glutamate aspartate antiporter)
SLC25A13:Solute carrier family 25 member 13 (glutamate aspartate antiporter)
SMCT1 (SLC5A8):Sodium-coupled monocarboxylate transporter 1
SMCT2 (SLC5A12):Sodium-coupled monocarboxylate transporter 2
TAM:Tumor-associated macrophage
VEGF:Vascular endothelial growth factor
VHL:von Hippel Lindau.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. H. Connor, H. F. Woods, and J. G. G. Ledingham, “Comparison of the kinetics and utilisation of D(–)- and L(+)-sodium lactate in normal man,” Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 481–487, 1983. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. A. Le, C. R. Cooper, A. M. Gouw et al., “Inhibition of lactate dehydrogenase A induces oxidative stress and inhibits tumor progression,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, no. 5, pp. 2037–2042, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. J. R. Doherty and J. L. Cleveland, “Targeting lactate metabolism for cancer therapeutics,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 123, no. 9, pp. 3685–3692, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. J. Seheult, G. Fitzpatrick, and G. Boran, “Lactic acidosis: an update,” Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 322–333, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. J. Lemire, R. J. Mailloux, and V. D. Appanna, “Mitochondrial lactate dehydrogenase is involved in oxidative-energy metabolism in human astrocytoma cells (CCF-STTG1),” PLoS One, vol. 3, no. 2, Article ID e1550, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. M. Adeva-Andany, M. Lopez-Ojen, R. Funcasta-Calderon et al., “Comprehensive review on lactate metabolism in human health,” Mitochondrion, vol. 17, pp. 76–100, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. A. J. Levine and A. M. Puzio-Kuter, “The control of the metabolic switch in cancers by oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes,” Science, vol. 330, no. 6009, pp. 1340–1344, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. I. Marchiq and J. Pouyssegur, “Hypoxia, cancer metabolism and the therapeutic benefit of targeting lactate/H(+) symporters,” Journal of Molecular Medicine, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 155–171, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. E. Gopal, Y. J. Fei, M. Sugawara et al., “Expression of slc5a8 in kidney and its role in Na(+)-coupled transport of lactate,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 279, no. 43, pp. 44522–44532, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. E. Gopal, S. Miyauchi, P. M. Martin et al., “Transport of nicotinate and structurally related compounds by human SMCT1 (SLC5A8) and its relevance to drug transport in the mammalian intestinal tract,” Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 575–584, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. H. Li, L. Myeroff, D. Smiraglia et al., “SLC5A8, a sodium transporter, is a tumor suppressor gene silenced by methylation in human colon aberrant crypt foci and cancers,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 100, no. 14, pp. 8412–8417, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. P. M. Martin, E. Gopal, S. Ananth et al., “Identity of SMCT1 (SLC5A8) as a neuron-specific Na+-coupled transporter for active uptake of L-lactate and ketone bodies in the brain,” Journal of Neurochemistry, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 279–288, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. V. Estrella, T. Chen, M. Lloyd et al., “Acidity generated by the tumor microenvironment drives local invasion,” Cancer Research, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 1524–1535, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. R. A. Gatenby and E. T. Gawlinski, “A reaction-diffusion model of cancer invasion,” Cancer Research, vol. 56, pp. 5745–5753, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  15. X. B. Li, J. D. Gu, and Q. H. Zhou, “Review of aerobic glycolysis and its key enzymes-new targets for lung cancer therapy,” Thoracic Cancer, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 17–24, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. M. G. Vander Heiden, L. C. Cantley, and C. B. Thompson, “Understanding the Warburg effect: the metabolic requirements of cell proliferation,” Science, vol. 324, no. 5930, pp. 1029–1033, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. J. W. Locasale and L. C. Cantley, “Metabolic flux and the regulation of mammalian cell growth,” Cell Metabolism, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 443–451, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. A. A. Shestov, X. Liu, Z. Ser et al., “Quantitative determinants of aerobic glycolysis identify flux through the enzyme GAPDH as a limiting step,” eLife, vol. 3, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. L. K. Boroughs and R. J. DeBerardinis, “Metabolic pathways promoting cancer cell survival and growth,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 351–359, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. M. V. Liberti and J. W. Locasale, “The Warburg effect: how does it benefit cancer cells?” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 211–218, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. Y. Fu, S. Liu, S. Yin et al., “The reverse Warburg effect is likely to be an Achilles’ heel of cancer that can be exploited for cancer therapy,” Oncotarget, vol. 8, no. 34, pp. 57813–57825, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. S. Pavlides, D. Whitaker-Menezes, R. Castello-Cros et al., “The reverse Warburg effect: aerobic glycolysis in cancer associated fibroblasts and the tumor stroma,” Cell Cycle, vol. 8, no. 23, pp. 3984–4001, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. G. A. Brooks, “Mammalian fuel utilization during sustained exercise,” Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, vol. 120, no. 1, pp. 89–107, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. S. Genc, I. A. Kurnaz, and M. Ozilgen, “Astrocyte-neuron lactate shuttle may boost more ATP supply to the neuron under hypoxic conditions--in silico study supported by in vitro expression data,” BMC Systems Biology, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 162, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. G. L. Semenza, “Hypoxia-inducible factor 1: master regulator of O2 homeostasis,” Current Opinion in Genetics & Development, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 588–594, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. S. Yasuda, S. Arii, A. Mori et al., “Hexokinase II and VEGF expression in liver tumors: correlation with hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha and its significance,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 117–123, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. P. Carmeliet, Y. Dor, J. M. Herbert et al., “Role of HIF-1alpha in hypoxia-mediated apoptosis, cell proliferation and tumour angiogenesis,” Nature, vol. 394, no. 6692, pp. 485–490, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. C. A. Crane, K. Austgen, K. Haberthur et al., “Immune evasion mediated by tumor-derived lactate dehydrogenase induction of NKG2D ligands on myeloid cells in glioblastoma patients,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 111, no. 35, pp. 12823–12828, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. M. I. Koukourakis, A. Giatromanolaki, S. Winter, R. Leek, E. Sivridis, and A. L. Harris, “Lactate dehydrogenase 5 expression in squamous cell head and neck cancer relates to prognosis following radical or postoperative radiotherapy,” Oncology, vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 285–292, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. S. Langhammer, M. Najjar, H. Hess-Stumpp, and K. H. Thierauch, “LDH-A influences hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha (HIF1 alpha) and is critical for growth of HT29 colon carcinoma cells in vivo,” Target Oncology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 155–162, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. F. Perez de Heredia, I. S. Wood, and P. Trayhurn, “Hypoxia stimulates lactate release and modulates monocarboxylate transporter (MCT1, MCT2, and MCT4) expression in human adipocytes,” Pflügers Archiv-European Journal of Physiology, vol. 459, no. 3, pp. 509–518, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. M. S. Ullah, A. J. Davies, and A. P. Halestrap, “The plasma membrane lactate transporter MCT4, but not MCT1, is up-regulated by hypoxia through a HIF-1alpha-dependent mechanism,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 281, no. 14, pp. 9030–9037, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. H. A. Al-Ahmadie, D. Alden, L. X. Qin et al., “Carbonic anhydrase IX expression in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: an immunohistochemical study comparing 2 antibodies,” The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 377–382, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. M. Benej, S. Pastorekova, and J. Pastorek, “Carbonic anhydrase IX: regulation and role in cancer,” Subcellular Biochemistry, vol. 75, pp. 199–219, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. M. R. Ambrosio, C. Di Serio, G. Danza et al., “Carbonic anhydrase IX is a marker of hypoxia and correlates with higher Gleason scores and ISUP grading in prostate cancer,” Diagnostic Pathology, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 45, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. R. G. Feichtinger, R. Lang, R. Geilberger et al., “Melanoma tumors exhibit a variable but distinct metabolic signature,” Experimental Dermatology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 204–207, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. L. Syrjanen, T. Luukkaala, M. Leppilampi et al., “Expression of cancer-related carbonic anhydrases IX and XII in normal skin and skin neoplasms,” APMIS, vol. 122, no. 9, pp. 880–889, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. S. C. Chafe, P. C. McDonald, S. Saberi et al., “Targeting hypoxia-induced carbonic anhydrase IX enhances immune-checkpoint blockade locally and systemically,” Cancer Immunology Research, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 1064–1078, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. K. Xu, X. Mao, M. Mehta, J. Cui, C. Zhang, and Y. Xu, “A comparative study of gene-expression data of basal cell carcinoma and melanoma reveals new insights about the two cancers,” PLoS One, vol. 7, no. 1, Article ID e30750, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. D. Fukumura, L. Xu, Y. Chen, T. Gohongi, B. Seed, and R. K. Jain, “Hypoxia and acidosis independently up-regulate vascular endothelial growth factor transcription in brain tumors in vivo,” Cancer Research, vol. 61, pp. 6020–6024, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  41. H. Lu, R. A. Forbes, and A. Verma, “Hypoxia-inducible factor 1 activation by aerobic glycolysis implicates the Warburg effect in carcinogenesis,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 277, no. 26, pp. 23111–23115, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. Q. Shi, X. Le, B. Wang et al., “Regulation of vascular endothelial growth factor expression by acidosis in human cancer cells,” Oncogene, vol. 20, no. 28, pp. 3751–3756, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. S. Meierjohann, “Hypoxia-independent drivers of melanoma angiogenesis,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 5, p. 102, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. R. Busca, E. Berra, C. Gaggioli et al., “Hypoxia-inducible factor 1{alpha} is a new target of microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (MITF) in melanoma cells,” The Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 170, no. 1, pp. 49–59, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. M. L. Hartman and M. Czyz, “Pro-survival role of MITF in melanoma,” Journal of Investigative Dermatology, vol. 135, no. 2, pp. 352–358, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. R. S. Cruz, R. A. de Aguiar, T. Turnes, R. Penteado Dos Santos, M. F. de Oliveira, and F. Caputo, “Intracellular shuttle: the lactate aerobic metabolism,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2012, Article ID 420984, 8 pages, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. T. Hashimoto, S. Masuda, S. Taguchi, and G. A. Brooks, “Immunohistochemical analysis of MCT1, MCT2 and MCT4 expression in rat plantaris muscle,” The Journal of Physiology, vol. 567, no. 1, pp. 121–129, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. S. D. Byrum, S. K. Larson, N. L. Avaritt et al., “Quantitative proteomics identifies activation of hallmark pathways of cancer in patient melanoma,” Journal of Proteomics & Bioinformatics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 43–50, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. B. R. Hill and C. Levi, “Elevation of a serum component in neoplastic disease,” Cancer Research, vol. 14, pp. 513–515, 1954. View at: Google Scholar
  50. C. M. Balch, J. E. Gershenwald, S. J. Soong et al., “Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 27, no. 36, pp. 6199–6206, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. J. E. Gershenwald, R. A. Scolyer, K. R. Hess et al., “Melanoma staging: evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 472–492, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. J. Ding, J. E. Karp, and A. Emadi, “Elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) can be a marker of immune suppression in cancer: interplay between hematologic and solid neoplastic clones and their microenvironments,” Cancer Biomarkers, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 353–363, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. J. Dick, N. Lang, A. Slynko et al., “Use of LDH and autoimmune side effects to predict response to ipilimumab treatment,” Immunotherapy, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 1033–1044, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. S. Kelderman, B. Heemskerk, H. van Tinteren et al., “Lactate dehydrogenase as a selection criterion for ipilimumab treatment in metastatic melanoma,” Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, vol. 63, pp. 449–458, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. F. Petrelli, R. Ardito, B. Merelli et al., “Prognostic and predictive role of elevated lactate dehydrogenase in patients with melanoma treated with immunotherapy and BRAF inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Melanoma Research, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. N. B. Wagner, A. Forschner, U. Leiter, C. Garbe, and T. K. Eigentler, “S100B and LDH as early prognostic markers for response and overall survival in melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 or combined anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 antibodies,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 339–346, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. B. Weide, A. Martens, J. C. Hassel et al., “Baseline biomarkers for outcome of melanoma patients treated with pembrolizumab,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 22, no. 22, pp. 5487–5496, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. Z. Zhang, Y. Li, X. Yan et al., “Pretreatment lactate dehydrogenase may predict outcome of advanced non small-cell lung cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a meta-analysis,” Cancer Medicine, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1467–1473, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. D. I. Gabrilovich, S. Ostrand-Rosenberg, and V. Bronte, “Coordinated regulation of myeloid cells by tumours,” Nature Reviews Immunology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 253–268, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. A. Morrot, L. M. da Fonseca, E. J. Salustiano et al., “Metabolic symbiosis and immunomodulation: how tumor cell-derived lactate may disturb innate and adaptive immune responses,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 8, p. 81, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. I. Serganova, I. J. Cohen, K. Vemuri et al., “LDH-A regulates the tumor microenvironment via HIF-signaling and modulates the immune response,” PLoS One, vol. 13, no. 9, Article ID e0203965, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. V. Pucino, M. Bombardieri, C. Pitzalis, and C. Mauro, “Lactate at the crossroads of metabolism, inflammation, and autoimmunity,” European Journal of Immunology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 14–21, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. J. C. Garcia-Canaveras, L. Chen, and J. D. Rabinowitz, “The tumor metabolic microenvironment: lessons from lactate,” Cancer Research, vol. 79, no. 13, pp. 3155–3162, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. S. Ostrand-Rosenberg, “Myeloid-derived suppressor cells: more mechanisms for inhibiting antitumor immunity,” Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 1593–1600, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. Z. Husain, Y. Huang, P. Seth, and V. P. Sukhatme, “Tumor-derived lactate modifies antitumor immune response: effect on myeloid-derived suppressor cells and NK cells,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 191, no. 3, pp. 1486–1495, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. A. Mantovani, F. Marchesi, A. Malesci, L. Laghi, and P. Allavena, “Tumour-associated macrophages as treatment targets in oncology,” Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 399–416, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. O. R. Colegio, N. Q. Chu, A. L. Szabo et al., “Functional polarization of tumour-associated macrophages by tumour-derived lactic acid,” Nature, vol. 513, no. 7519, pp. 559–563, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. H. Lemos, L. Huang, G. C. Prendergast, and A. L. Mellor, “Immune control by amino acid catabolism during tumorigenesis and therapy,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 162–175, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. J. Yang, J. Yan, and B. Liu, “Targeting VEGF/VEGFR to modulate antitumor immunity,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 9, p. 978, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. S. C. Stone, R. A. M. Rossetti, K. L. F. Alvarez et al., “Lactate secreted by cervical cancer cells modulates macrophage phenotype,” Journal of Leukocyte Biology, vol. 105, no. 5, pp. 1041–1054, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. H. Shime, M. Yabu, T. Akazawa et al., “Tumor-secreted lactic acid promotes IL-23/IL-17 proinflammatory pathway,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 180, no. 11, pp. 7175–7183, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. J. Yan, M. J. Smyth, and M. W. L. Teng, “Interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 and their conflicting roles in cancer,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, vol. 10, no. 7, Article ID a028530, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. T. Ohashi, T. Akazawa, M. Aoki et al., “Dichloroacetate improves immune dysfunction caused by tumor-secreted lactic acid and increases antitumor immunoreactivity,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 133, no. 5, pp. 1107–1118, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. P. Chen, H. Zuo, H. Xiong et al., “Gpr132 sensing of lactate mediates tumor-macrophage interplay to promote breast cancer metastasis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 580–585, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. P. Ranganathan, A. Shanmugam, D. Swafford et al., “GPR81, a cell-surface receptor for lactate, regulates intestinal homeostasis and protects mice from experimental colitis,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 200, pp. 1781–1789, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. P. Seth, E. Csizmadia, A. Hedblom et al., “Deletion of lactate dehydrogenase-A in myeloid cells triggers antitumor immunity,” Cancer Research, vol. 77, no. 13, pp. 3632–3643, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. D. Laoui, J. Keirsse, Y. Morias et al., “The tumour microenvironment harbours ontogenically distinct dendritic cell populations with opposing effects on tumour immunity,” Nature Communications, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 13720, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. E. Gottfried, L. A. Kunz-Schughart, S. Ebner et al., “Tumor-derived lactic acid modulates dendritic cell activation and antigen expression,” Blood, vol. 107, no. 5, pp. 2013–2021, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. A. Nasi, T. Fekete, A. Krishnamurthy et al., “Dendritic cell reprogramming by endogenously produced lactic acid,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 191, no. 6, pp. 3090–3099, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. A. Puig-Kroger, O. M. Pello, O. Muniz-Pello et al., “Peritoneal dialysis solutions inhibit the differentiation and maturation of human monocyte-derived dendritic cells: effect of lactate and glucose-degradation products,” Journal of Leukocyte Biology, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 482–492, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. K. Goetze, S. Walenta, M. Ksiazkiewicz, L. A. Kunz-Schughart, and W. Mueller-Klieser, “Lactate enhances motility of tumor cells and inhibits monocyte migration and cytokine release,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 39, pp. 453–463, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. K. Peter, M. Rehli, K. Singer, K. Renner-Sattler, and M. Kreutz, “Lactic acid delays the inflammatory response of human monocytes,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 457, no. 3, pp. 412–418, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. D. Tong, Q. Liu, L. A. Wang et al., “The roles of the COX2/PGE2/EP axis in therapeutic resistance,” Cancer and Metastasis Reviews, vol. 37, no. 2-3, pp. 355–368, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. L. Wei, Y. Zhou, J. Yao et al., “Lactate promotes PGE2 synthesis and gluconeogenesis in monocytes to benefit the growth of inflammation-associated colorectal tumor,” Oncotarget, vol. 6, no. 18, pp. 16198–16214, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. A. Brand, K. Singer, G. E. Koehl et al., “LDHA-associated lactic acid production blunts tumor immunosurveillance by T and NK cells,” Cell Metabolism, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 657–671, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. K. Fischer, P. Hoffmann, S. Voelkl et al., “Inhibitory effect of tumor cell-derived lactic acid on human T cells,” Blood, vol. 109, no. 9, pp. 3812–3819, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. S. Roth, H. Gmunder, and W. Droge, “Regulation of intracellular glutathione levels and lymphocyte functions by lactate,” Cell Immunology, vol. 136, no. 1, pp. 95–104, 1991. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. A. N. Mendler, B. Hu, P. U. Prinz, M. Kreutz, E. Gottfried, and E. Noessner, “Tumor lactic acidosis suppresses CTL function by inhibition of p38 and JNK/c-Jun activation,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 131, no. 3, pp. 633–640, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. C. Feder-Mengus, S. Ghosh, W. P. Weber et al., “Multiple mechanisms underlie defective recognition of melanoma cells cultured in three-dimensional architectures by antigen-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 96, no. 7, pp. 1072–1082, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. R. Haas, J. Smith, V. Rocher-Ros et al., “Lactate regulates metabolic and pro-inflammatory circuits in control of T cell migration and effector functions,” PLoS Biology, vol. 13, no. 7, Article ID e1002202, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. C. Keane, J. Tobin, D. Talaulikar et al., “A high LDH to absolute lymphocyte count ratio in patients with DLBCL predicts for a poor intratumoral immune response and inferior survival,” Oncotarget, vol. 9, no. 34, pp. 23620–23627, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. A. Angelin, L. Gil-de-Gomez, S. Dahiya et al., “Foxp3 reprograms T cell metabolism to function in low-glucose, high-lactate environments,” Cell Metabolism, vol. 25, no. 6, Article ID e1287, pp. 1282–1293, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. Y. Long, Z. Gao, X. Hu et al., “Downregulation of MCT4 for lactate exchange promotes the cytotoxicity of NK cells in breast carcinoma,” Cancer Medicine, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 4690–4700, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. C. Harmon, M. W. Robinson, F. Hand et al., “Lactate-mediated acidification of tumor microenvironment induces apoptosis of liver-resident NK cells in colorectal liver metastasis,” Cancer Immunology Research, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 335–346, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. A. Kumar, K. Pyaram, E. L. Yarosz et al., “Enhanced oxidative phosphorylation in NKT cells is essential for their survival and function,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116, no. 15, pp. 7439–7448, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. E. A. Bae, H. Seo, I. K. Kim, I. Jeon, and C. Y. Kang, “Roles of NKT cells in cancer immunotherapy,” Archives of Pharmacal Research, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 543–548, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. D. Wu, L. Zhuo, and X. Wang, “Metabolic reprogramming of carcinoma-associated fibroblasts and its impact on metabolic heterogeneity of tumors,” Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, vol. 64, pp. 125–131, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. M. Apicella, E. Giannoni, S. Fiore et al., “Increased lactate secretion by cancer cells sustains non-cell-autonomous adaptive resistance to MET and EGFR targeted therapies,” Cell Metabolism, vol. 28, no. 6, Article ID e846, pp. 848–865, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. M. Benkhoucha, N. Molnarfi, G. Schneiter, P. R. Walker, and P. H. Lalive, “The neurotrophic hepatocyte growth factor attenuates CD8+ cytotoxic T-lymphocyte activity,” Journal of Neuroinflammation, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 154, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. M. Benkhoucha, M. L. Santiago-Raber, G. Schneiter et al., “Hepatocyte growth factor inhibits CNS autoimmunity by inducing tolerogenic dendritic cells and CD25+Foxp3+ regulatory T cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, no. 14, pp. 6424–6429, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. R. Stern, S. Shuster, B. A. Neudecker, and B. Formby, “Lactate stimulates fibroblast expression of hyaluronan and CD44: the Warburg effect revisited,” Experimental Cell Research, vol. 276, no. 1, pp. 24–31, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. A. Josefsson, H. Adamo, P. Hammarsten et al., “Prostate cancer increases hyaluronan in surrounding nonmalignant stroma, and this response is associated with tumor growth and an unfavorable outcome,” The American Journal of Pathology, vol. 179, no. 4, pp. 1961–1968, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  103. K. L. Schwertfeger, M. K. Cowman, P. G. Telmer, E. A. Turley, and J. B. McCarthy, “Hyaluronan, inflammation, and breast cancer progression,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 6, p. 236, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. H. Choi and A. Moon, “Crosstalk between cancer cells and endothelial cells: implications for tumor progression and intervention,” Archives of Pharmacal Research, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 711–724, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  105. S. Beckert, F. Farrahi, R. S. Aslam et al., “Lactate stimulates endothelial cell migration,” Wound Repair and Regeneration, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 321–324, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. V. B. Kumar, R. I. Viji, M. S. Kiran, and P. R. Sudhakaran, “Endothelial cell response to lactate: implication of PAR modification of VEGF,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 211, no. 2, pp. 477–485, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. G. X. Ruan and A. Kazlauskas, “Lactate engages receptor tyrosine kinases Axl, Tie2, and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 to activate phosphoinositide 3-kinase/Akt and promote angiogenesis,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 288, no. 29, pp. 21161–21172, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  108. F. Vegran, R. Boidot, C. Michiels, P. Sonveaux, and O. Feron, “Lactate influx through the endothelial cell monocarboxylate transporter MCT1 supports an NF-kappaB/IL-8 pathway that drives tumor angiogenesis,” Cancer Res, vol. 71, no. 7, pp. 2550–2560, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  109. S. Daneshmandi, B. Wegiel, and P. Seth, “Blockade of lactate dehydrogenase-A (LDH-A) improves efficacy of anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) therapy in melanoma,” Cancers, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 450, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  110. R. Bok, J. Lee, R. Sriram et al., “The role of lactate metabolism in prostate cancer progression and metastases revealed by dual-agent hyperpolarized (13)C MRSI,” Cancers, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 257, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  111. L. Jin, J. Chun, C. Pan et al., “Phosphorylation-mediated activation of LDHA promotes cancer cell invasion and tumour metastasis,” Oncogene, vol. 36, no. 27, pp. 3797–3806, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. H. Xie, J. Hanai, J. G. Ren et al., “Targeting lactate dehydrogenase--a inhibits tumorigenesis and tumor progression in mouse models of lung cancer and impacts tumor-initiating cells,” Cell Metabolism, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 795–809, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  113. C. J. Valvona and H. L. Fillmore, “Oxamate, but not selective targeting of LDH-A, inhibits medulloblastoma cell glycolysis, growth and motility,” Brain Sciences, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 56, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  114. M. Zdralevic, A. Brand, L. Di Ianni et al., “Double genetic disruption of lactate dehydrogenases A and B is required to ablate the “Warburg effect” restricting tumor growth to oxidative metabolism,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 293, pp. 15947–15961, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  115. W. B. Novoa, A. D. Winer, A. J. Glaid, and G. W. Schwert, “Lactic dehydrogenase. V. Inhibition by oxamate and by oxalate,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 234, pp. 1143–1148, 1959. View at: Google Scholar
  116. M. Manerba, L. Di Ianni, L. Fiume, M. Roberti, M. Recanatini, and G. Di Stefano, “Lactate dehydrogenase inhibitors sensitize lymphoma cells to cisplatin without enhancing the drug effects on immortalized normal lymphocytes,” European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 74, pp. 95–102, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  117. J. Billiard, J. B. Dennison, J. Briand et al., “Quinoline 3-sulfonamides inhibit lactate dehydrogenase A and reverse aerobic glycolysis in cancer cells,” Cancer & Metabolism, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 19, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  118. P. S. Dragovich, B. P. Fauber, L. B. Corson et al., “Identification of substituted 2-thio-6-oxo-1,6-dihydropyrimidines as inhibitors of human lactate dehydrogenase,” Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 3186–3194, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  119. B. P. Fauber, P. S. Dragovich, J. Chen et al., “Identification of 2-amino-5-aryl-pyrazines as inhibitors of human lactate dehydrogenase,” Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters, vol. 23, no. 20, pp. 5533–5539, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  120. A. Boudreau, H. E. Purkey, A. Hitz et al., “Metabolic plasticity underpins innate and acquired resistance to LDHA inhibition,” Nature Chemical Biology, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 779–786, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  121. F. Farabegoli, M. Vettraino, M. Manerba, L. Fiume, M. Roberti, and G. Di Stefano, “Galloflavin, a new lactate dehydrogenase inhibitor, induces the death of human breast cancer cells with different glycolytic attitude by affecting distinct signaling pathways,” European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 729–738, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  122. M. Manerba, M. Vettraino, L. Fiume et al., “Galloflavin (CAS 568-80-9): a novel inhibitor of lactate dehydrogenase,” ChemMedChem, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 311–317, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  123. C. Granchi, S. Roy, A. De Simone et al., “N-Hydroxyindole-based inhibitors of lactate dehydrogenase against cancer cell proliferation,” European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 5398–5407, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. M. A. Lea, Y. Guzman, and C. Desbordes, “Inhibition of growth by combined treatment with inhibitors of lactate dehydrogenase and either phenformin or inhibitors of 6-Phosphofructo-2-kinase/Fructose-2,6-bisphosphatase 3,” Anticancer Research, vol. 36, pp. 1479–1488, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  125. G. Rai, K. R. Brimacombe, B. T. Mott et al., “Discovery and optimization of potent, cell-active pyrazole-based inhibitors of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH),” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 60, no. 22, pp. 9184–9204, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  126. A. S. Altamimi, A. M. Alafeefy, A. Balode et al., “Symmetric molecules with 1,4-triazole moieties as potent inhibitors of tumour-associated lactate dehydrogenase-A,” Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 147–150, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  127. C. Granchi, S. Fortunato, S. Meini et al., “Characterization of the saffron derivative crocetin as an inhibitor of human lactate dehydrogenase 5 in the antiglycolytic approach against cancer,” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 65, no. 28, pp. 5639–5649, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. M. Zhang, H. Liu, R. Guo et al., “Molecular mechanism of gossypol-induced cell growth inhibition and cell death of HT-29 human colon carcinoma cells,” Biochemical Pharmacology, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 93–103, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  129. M. Q. Baggstrom, Y. Qi, M. Koczywas et al., “A phase II study of AT-101 (Gossypol) in chemotherapy-sensitive recurrent extensive-stage small cell lung cancer,” Journal of Thoracic Oncology, vol. 6, no. 10, pp. 1757–1760, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  130. P. Bushunow, M. M. Reidenberg, J. Wasenko et al., “Gossypol treatment of recurrent adult malignant gliomas,” Journal of Neuro-Oncology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 79–86, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  131. M. R. Flack, R. G. Pyle, N. M. Mullen et al., “Oral gossypol in the treatment of metastatic adrenal cancer,” The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 1019–1024, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  132. R. S. Heist, J. Fain, B. Chinnasami et al., “Phase I/II study of AT-101 with topotecan in relapsed and refractory small cell lung cancer,” Journal of Thoracic Oncology, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 1637–1643, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  133. G. Liu, W. K. Kelly, G. Wilding, L. Leopold, K. Brill, and B. Somer, “An open-label, multicenter, phase I/II study of single-agent AT-101 in men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 3172–3176, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  134. C. Van Poznak, A. D. Seidman, M. M. Reidenberg et al., “Oral gossypol in the treatment of patients with refractory metastatic breast cancer: a phase I/II clinical trial,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 239–248, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  135. Q. Dai, Q. Yin, L. Wei et al., “Oroxylin A regulates glucose metabolism in response to hypoxic stress with the involvement of Hypoxia-inducible factor-1 in human hepatoma HepG2 cells,” Molecular Carcinogenesis, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1275–1289, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  136. L. Lu, Q. Guo, and L. Zhao, “Overview of oroxylin a: a promising flavonoid compound,” Phytotherapy Research, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 1765–1774, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  137. L. Shen, L. L. Zhang, H. Li et al., “Oroxylin A inhibits the generation of Tregs in non-small cell lung cancer,” Oncotarget, vol. 8, no. 30, pp. 49395–49408, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  138. B. Cui, Y. Luo, P. Tian et al., “Stress-induced epinephrine enhances lactate dehydrogenase A and promotes breast cancer stem-like cells,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 129, no. 3, pp. 1030–1046, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  139. N. Sada, S. Lee, T. Katsu, T. Otsuki, and T. Inoue, “Epilepsy treatment. Targeting LDH enzymes with a stiripentol analog to treat epilepsy,” Science, vol. 347, no. 6228, pp. 1362–1367, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  140. C. Brummer, S. Faerber, C. Bruss et al., “Metabolic targeting synergizes with MAPK inhibition and delays drug resistance in melanoma,” Cancer Letters, vol. 442, pp. 453–463, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  141. H. K. Kim, I. Lee, H. Bang et al., “MCT4 expression is a potential therapeutic target in colorectal cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 838–848, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  142. F. Morais-Santos, S. Granja, V. Miranda-Goncalves et al., “Targeting lactate transport suppresses in vivo breast tumour growth,” Oncotarget, vol. 6, no. 22, pp. 19177–19189, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  143. S. Gurrapu, S. K. Jonnalagadda, M. A. Alam et al., “Monocarboxylate transporter 1 inhibitors as potential anticancer agents,” ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 558–561, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  144. N. Draoui, O. Schicke, E. Seront et al., “Antitumor activity of 7-aminocarboxycoumarin derivatives, a new class of potent inhibitors of lactate influx but not efflux,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1410–1418, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  145. C. Pahlman, Z. Qi, C. M. Murray et al., “Immunosuppressive properties of a series of novel inhibitors of the monocarboxylate transporter MCT-1,” Transplant International, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 22–29, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  146. N. J. Curtis, L. Mooney, L. Hopcroft et al., “Pre-clinical pharmacology of AZD3965, a selective inhibitor of MCT1: DLBCL, NHL and Burkitt’s lymphoma anti-tumor activity,” Oncotarget, vol. 8, no. 41, pp. 69219–69236, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  147. R. Polanski, C. L. Hodgkinson, A. Fusi et al., “Activity of the monocarboxylate transporter 1 inhibitor AZD3965 in small cell lung cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 926–937, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  148. S. Sasaki, Y. Futagi, M. Ideno et al., “Effect of diclofenac on SLC16A3/MCT4 by the Caco-2 cell line,” Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 218–223, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  149. Y. Futagi, M. Kobayashi, K. Narumi, A. Furugen, and K. Iseki, “Identification of a selective inhibitor of human monocarboxylate transporter 4,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 495, no. 1, pp. 427–432, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  150. D. Benjamin, D. Robay, S. K. Hindupur et al., “Dual inhibition of the lactate transporters MCT1 and MCT4 is synthetic lethal with metformin due to NAD+ depletion in cancer cells,” Cell Reports, vol. 25, no. 11, Article ID e3044, pp. 3047–3058, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  151. B. Nancolas, L. Guo, R. Zhou et al., “The anti-tumour agent lonidamine is a potent inhibitor of the mitochondrial pyruvate carrier and plasma membrane monocarboxylate transporters,” Biochemical Journal, vol. 473, no. 7, pp. 929–936, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  152. G. Robustelli della Cuna and P. Pedrazzoli, “Toxicity and clinical tolerance of lonidamine,” Seminars in Oncology, vol. 18, pp. 18–22, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  153. R. Hoque, A. Farooq, A. Ghani, F. Gorelick, and W. Z. Mehal, “Lactate reduces liver and pancreatic injury in Toll-like receptor- and inflammasome-mediated inflammation via GPR81-mediated suppression of innate immunity,” Gastroenterology, vol. 146, no. 7, pp. 1763–1774, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  154. Y. J. Lee, K. J. Shin, S. A. Park et al., “G-protein-coupled receptor 81 promotes a malignant phenotype in breast cancer through angiogenic factor secretion,” Oncotarget, vol. 7, no. 43, pp. 70898–70911, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  155. W. Wagner, K. D. Kania, A. Blauz, and W. M. Ciszewski, “The lactate receptor (HCAR1/GPR81) contributes to doxorubicin chemoresistance via ABCB1 transporter up-regulation in human cervical cancer HeLa cells,” Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, vol. 68, pp. 555–564, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  156. J. Feng, H. Yang, Y. Zhang et al., “Tumor cell-derived lactate induces TAZ-dependent upregulation of PD-L1 through GPR81 in human lung cancer cells,” Oncogene, vol. 36, no. 42, pp. 5829–5839, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  157. C. L. Roland, T. Arumugam, D. Deng et al., “Cell surface lactate receptor GPR81 is crucial for cancer cell survival,” Cancer Research, vol. 74, no. 18, pp. 5301–5310, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2019 René G. Feichtinger and Roland Lang. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

966 Views | 356 Downloads | 0 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder