To investigate the immune response and mechanisms associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we performed single-cell RNA sequencing on nasopharyngeal and bronchial samples from 19 clinically well-characterized patients with moderate or critical disease and from five healthy controls. We identified airway epithelial cell types and states vulnerable to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In patients with COVID-19, epithelial cells showed an average three-fold increase in expression of the SARS-CoV-2 entry receptor ACE2, which correlated with interferon signals by immune cells. Compared to moderate cases, critical cases exhibited stronger interactions between epithelial and immune cells, as indicated by ligand–receptor expression profiles, and activated immune cells, including inflammatory macrophages expressing CCL2, CCL3, CCL20, CXCL1, CXCL3, CXCL10, IL8, IL1B and TNF. The transcriptional differences in critical cases compared to moderate cases likely contribute to clinical observations of heightened inflammatory tissue damage, lung injury and respiratory failure. Our data suggest that pharmacologic inhibition of the CCR1 and/or CCR5 pathways might suppress immune hyperactivation in critical COVID-19.

Indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) inhibitors have entered clinical trials based on their ability to restore anti-tumor immunity in preclinical studies. However, the mechanisms leading to constitutive expression of IDO in human tumors are largely unknown. Here we analyzed the pathways mediating constitutive IDO expression in human cancer. IDO-positive tumor cells and tissues showed basal phosphorylation and acetylation of STAT3 as evidenced by western blotting and immunoprecipitation. Inhibition of IL-6 or STAT3 using siRNA and/or pharmacological inhibitors reduced IDO mRNA and protein expression as well as kynurenine formation. In turn, IDO enzymatic activity activated the AHR as shown by the induction of AHR target genes. IDO-mediated AHR activation induced IL-6 expression, while inhibition or knockdown of the AHR reduced IL-6 expression. IDO activity thus sustains its own expression via an autocrine AHR–IL-6–STAT3 signaling loop. Inhibition of the AHR–IL-6–STAT3 signaling loop restored T-cell proliferation in mixed leukocyte reactions performed in the presence of IDO-expressing human cancer cells. Identification of the IDO-AHR-IL-6-STAT3 signaling loop maintaining IDO expression in human cancers reveals novel therapeutic targets for the inhibition of this core pathway promoting immunosuppression of human cancers. The relevance of the IDO-AHR-IL-6-STAT3 transcriptional circuit is underscored by the finding that high expression of its members IDO, STAT3 and the AHR target gene CYP1B1 is associated with reduced relapse-free survival in lung cancer patients.

Based on its effects on both tumour cell intrinsic malignant properties as well as anti-tumour immune responses, tryptophan catabolism has emerged as an important metabolic regulator of cancer progression. Three enzymes, indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase 1 and 2 (IDO1/2) and tryptophan-2,3-dioxygenase (TDO2), catalyse the first step of the degradation of the essential amino acid tryptophan (Trp) to kynurenine (Kyn). The notion of inhibiting IDO1 using small-molecule inhibitors elicited high hopes of a positive impact in the field of immuno-oncology, by restoring anti-tumour immune responses and synergising with other immunotherapies such as immune checkpoint inhibition. However, clinical trials with IDO1 inhibitors have yielded disappointing results, hence raising many questions. This review will discuss strategies to target Trp-degrading enzymes and possible down-stream consequences of their inhibition. We aim to provide comprehensive background information on Trp catabolic enzymes as targets in immuno-oncology and their current state of development. Details of the clinical trials with IDO1 inhibitors, including patient stratification, possible effects of the inhibitors themselves, effects of pre-treatments and the therapies the inhibitors were combined with, are discussed and mechanisms proposed that might have compensated for IDO1 inhibition. Finally, alternative approaches are suggested to circumvent these problems.