Íñigo González-Larreategui1
Manrique Valdés-Bango Martín1
Sílvia Casacuberta-Serra2*
Laura Soucek1,2,3,4*- 1Models of Cancer Therapies Laboratory, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Cellex Centre, Hospital University Vall d’Hebron Campus, Barcelona, Spain
- 2Peptomyc S.L., Barcelona, Spain
- 3Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, Barcelona, Spain
- 4Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain
Immunotherapies have transformed cancer treatment by harnessing the immune system to recognize and eliminate malignant cells, offering durable clinical benefit across diverse tumor types. Despite successes with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and other strategies like cytokines, oncolytic viruses, cancer vaccines, bispecific antibodies, and adoptive cell therapies, substantial fractions of patients still fail to respond or develop resistance. The oncogene MYC, deregulated in ~70% of human cancers, has emerged as a central driver of immune evasion and a key contributor to immunotherapy failure. MYC regulates broad transcriptional networks controlling proliferation, metabolism, angiogenesis, and cell survival, while also orchestrating profound remodeling of the tumor microenvironment (TME). Mechanistically, oncogenic MYC suppresses antigen processing and presentation, attenuates interferon signaling, and upregulates immune checkpoints such as PD-L1 and CD47. Concurrently, MYC stimulates secretion of immunosuppressive cytokines and chemokines that recruit regulatory T cells, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, and M2 macrophages, while driving metabolic reprogramming that fosters nutrient competition, hypoxia, and acidosis, impairing effector T- and NK-cell function. Through these pathways, MYC promotes primary, adaptive, and acquired resistance to immunotherapy. Targeting MYC, directly or indirectly, holds promise to restore immune surveillance and potentiate immunotherapeutic efficacy. This review highlights MYC as a master regulator of tumor–immune interactions and underscores the therapeutic potential of MYC inhibition to overcome resistance and expand the clinical impact of cancer immunotherapy.
Immunotherapies in cancer
Normally, our immune system is quite effective in controlling diseases, but it often fails to keep cancer at bay. This paradox was first studied in the late 19th century (1–3), but the concept of immunosurveillance only emerged by the mid-20th century. According to it, immune cells and their secreted molecules can distinguish between self-tissues and foreign threats (4), opening the opportunity to harness the immune system against malignancies like cancer. In this context, the discovery of various cells from both the innate and adaptive immune responses, along with the cytokines involved, has shaped the field of immunotherapy. Cancer immunotherapy represents a revolutionary shift in cancer care, complementing and sometimes replacing chemotherapy in various tumor types, where it offers clinical benefits with a usually more favorable toxicity profile (5). Today, immunotherapy treatments are available for more than 30 types of solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, often inducing durable responses in patients with advanced or otherwise difficult-to-treat cancers (6).
Cytokine-based therapies
The earliest immunotherapies developed were cytokine-based. Cytokines serve as “messengers” orchestrating cellular interactions within the immune system in response to stresses. Interferon type 1 (IFN-I) and interleukin-2 (IL-2) were the first cytokines to be identified and FDA-approved by the end of the 20th century (7–10). Several additional cytokines followed the same path but displayed toxic side effects that prompted researchers to explore other immune components for cancer therapy.
Oncolytic viruses
Another category of agents is based on oncolytic viruses, which take advantage of the weakened antiviral defenses of cancer cells. Genetic engineering has led to the approval of four oncolytic virus therapies worldwide, used against melanoma, head and neck cancers, and malignant glioma (11–14).
Cancer vaccines
Cancer vaccines using tumor-specific antigens to elicit T-cell-mediated anti-tumor immune responses emerged as a less toxic alternative than cytokines. This concept initially arose from the use of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), a weakened form of Mycobacterium bovis, as a vaccine to reduce tumor growth (15–17). However, it was not until 2010 that the FDA approved sipuleucel-T, the first cancer vaccine (18). Advances in cancer immunotherapy have led to next-generation vaccines using mRNA technology and tumor neoantigens.
Antibody-based therapies
With the identification of tumor antigens capable of mediating T-cell responses, antibody-based therapies emerged as a new possible approach. These antibodies either bind tumor cell antigens to mark them for immune destruction or target immune cells to activate them against cancer cells. Antibodies targeting immune cell receptors began with the discovery of 4-1BB, a T-cell co-stimulatory receptor (19–21). This discovery paved the way for monoclonal antibodies developed to amplify T-cell responses. On the other hand, the identification of immune checkpoints (IC) revolutionized immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) designed to block inhibitory receptors on immune cells and reactivate anti-tumor immunity (3). CTLA-4, PD-1 receptor and its ligand, PD-L1, are the most common checkpoint molecules therapeutically targeted by approved therapies for various cancers (22–32). After them, other T cell surface receptors, such as LAG-3 and TIM-3, also became target for ICIs (1). To date, 128 ICIs have already been approved, representing 81% of all cancer immunotherapies (6). Bispecific antibodies are the next generation of antibody-based therapies combining checkpoint blockade with targeted co-stimulation of T cells. So far, 8 bispecific antibodies have received FDA approval and are emerging as important immunotherapies (6).
Adoptive cell therapies
More recently, the power of T cells to make potent cancer-targeting therapies led to the development of adoptive cell therapies. They utilize patients’ or donors’ immune cells, which are collected, sometimes genetically engineered, expanded, and reinfused to treat cancer. These personalized treatments began with the use of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) (33). However, the identification of T-cell receptor (TCR) genetic sequences enabled the development of TCR-engineered T cells and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells (34, 35). The challenge of short-lived responses was addressed by the addition of co-stimulatory domains like CD28 or 4-1BB, which enhanced durability and potency (36–38), leading to several FDA approvals for hematological malignancies (39–41) and solid tumors (42). Importantly, CAR technology has lately expanded beyond T cells to natural killer (NK) cells and macrophages, offering off-the-shelf products accessible to more patients (43).
However, despite notable successes, immunotherapies still fail to benefit a large number of patients, mainly due to tumor-intrinsic heterogeneity and tumor-extrinsic factors like the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME). Hence, unlocking immunotherapy’s full potential requires strategies to overcome such resistance mechanisms. Resistance can be broadly categorized as primary, adaptive, or acquired, each shaped by distinct intrinsic and extrinsic processes that undermine antitumor immune responses (44). Primary resistance describes the absence of clinical benefit from the onset of treatment, occurring when tumors fail to trigger an effective immune response despite therapy (45). In contrast, adaptive resistance emerges under therapeutic pressure, as tumor cells dynamically reprogram immune-recognition pathways to evade immune destruction. This process reflects the complex crosstalk between tumor and immune cells within the TME, as well as the connection between intrinsic and extrinsic factors (44, 46). Finally, acquired resistance denotes the loss of therapeutic benefit typically due to epigenetic remodeling, epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT), stemness induction, and mitochondrial or caspase alterations. Altogether, these resistance mechanisms highlight the diverse ways tumors escape immunotherapy, and they encompass both tumor-intrinsic drivers and microenvironmental influences.
Among these drivers, the MYC oncogene has emerged as a key orchestrator of immune evasion and immunotherapy resistance. Through its key role in tumor proliferation, metabolism, and TME remodeling, MYC shapes both intrinsic tumor properties and the extrinsic immune landscape. Moreover, MYC deregulation emerges as an oncogenic feature across the different tumor types with approved immunotherapies (Table 1), including melanoma (47–49), renal cell carcinoma (50), esophageal cancer (51), glioblastoma (52), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (53), prostate cancer (54), breast cancer (55, 56), endometrial cancer (56), non-small-cell lung cancer (57, 58), small-cell lung cancer (59), hepatocellular carcinoma (60), colorectal cancer (57, 61, 62), sarcoma (63–65) and hematological malignancies (66–69). This shared MYC dependency strengthens its potential as a therapeutic target to overcome immunotherapy resistance. Therefore, this review discusses MYC’s role in tumorigenesis, with a particular focus on how MYC rewires antitumor immunity and contributes to immunotherapy failure and highlights therapeutic avenues to target MYC-driven resistance.
Table 1. MYC involvement in major tumor types with approved immunotherapies.
MYC role in cancer
MYC is a pleiotropic transcription factor critically involved in tumor initiation, progression, and maintenance (Figure 1) (72). Since its discovery over four decades ago, MYC has emerged as one of the most frequently deregulated oncogenes across human malignancies (approximately 70% of all human cancers) (72).
Figure 1. MYC orchestrates diverse tumorigenic programs. Deregulated MYC in cancer cells drives a broad range of cell-intrinsic processes, including uncontrolled proliferation, enhanced biosynthesis and metabolism, resistance to apoptosis and induction of stemness, genomic instability, and epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT). At the cell-extrinsic level, MYC profoundly remodels the tumor microenvironment by promoting angiogenesis and modulating immune and stromal components.
The MYC family comprises three paralogs: c-MYC, N-MYC (MYCN), and L-MYC (MYCL), each with distinct expression patterns and tissue specificities. c-MYC exhibits the broadest expression profile across tissue types and is the most frequently dysregulated member in both hematological and solid tumors (66, 73). N-MYC is predominantly expressed in neural tissues and early hematopoietic development, with its amplification serving as a hallmark of aggressive neuroblastoma (74, 75). L-MYC, on the other hand, shows more restricted expression, primarily in lung tissue, and is particularly overexpressed in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) (59). Across cancer types, MYC deregulation consistently correlates with aggressive disease, therapeutic resistance, and poor clinical outcomes, establishing it as a critical determinant of tumor behavior and treatment response (66, 76).
Under physiological conditions, MYC expression is subject to a very tight temporal and spatial regulation. MYC proteins are virtually absent in quiescent cells but rapidly induced upon mitogenic stimulation, with both mRNA and protein exhibiting short half-lives of 15–20 minutes (72, 77, 78). This rapid turnover ensures precise, dynamic control of MYC-dependent programs through multilayered regulation at transcriptional, post-transcriptional, and post-translational levels (79). At the protein level, MYC stability is governed by sequential phosphorylation events: Serine 62 (S62) phosphorylation promotes stability, while subsequent Threonine 58 (T58) phosphorylation marks MYC for ubiquitin-mediated proteasomal degradation (80). Functionally, MYC operates as an intrinsically disordered protein that requires heterodimerization with its obligate partner MAX through their respective b-HLH-LZ domains to achieve structural competence for DNA binding (81, 82). Then, the MYC-MAX heterodimer recognizes canonical E-box motifs (CACGTG) in target gene regulatory regions, recruiting transcriptional cofactors via MYC N-terminal transactivation domain (TAD) to regulate approximately 15% of the genome (83–85). Beyond activation, MYC also functions as a transcriptional repressor through protein-protein interactions, notably with MIZ-1, which mediates repression of cell cycle inhibitors and anti-apoptotic genes like BCL-2 (86–89). This dual capacity for activation and repression under normal circumstances enables MYC to coordinate proliferation with apoptotic sensitization, preventing uncontrolled growth.
In contrast to many oncogenes and tumor suppressors, the protein-coding sequence of MYC is rarely mutated in cancer. Unlike most cancer-causing genes that are typically altered through a single mechanism, MYC is uniquely subject to deregulation through many diverse processes. These mechanisms include gene amplification (accounting for 15-20% of cases), chromosomal translocations (particularly in leukemias and lymphomas), enhancer hijacking and super-enhancer activation, viral insertion, increased oncogenic signaling (e.g. KRAS, WNT-β-catenin, SRC, RTKs, and NOTCH) that elevates MYC expression and/or protein stability, and post-translational mechanisms including loss of E3 ubiquitin ligases that normally target MYC for degradation (80, 90). Even inactivation of tumor suppressor genes, particularly of APC, PTEN, and PP2A, contributes to MYC stabilization and accumulation (91, 92).
This mechanistic diversity underscores MYC’s central position in oncogenic networks and its capacity to integrate multiple upstream oncogenic signals. Critically, even modest increases in MYC expression, as little as 2-fold above physiological levels, are sufficient to drive tumorigenic processes (93). In such contexts, MYC not only amplifies established transcriptional programs through canonical E-box binding but also engages lower-affinity non-canonical sites in a dose-dependent manner, activating previously silent oncogenic programs (94, 95). Thus, even when it is not the primary driver mutation, MYC functions as a central integration node for both extracellular and intracellular oncogenic signals.
Building on this molecular framework, MYC drives many, if not all, of the hallmarks of cancer by orchestrating a broad array of cell-intrinsic (autonomous) and microenvironmental (extrinsic) tumorigenic programs. The tumorigenic programs driven by MYC have been described in detail elsewhere (57, 96–100) and are summarized schematically in Figure 1. Briefly:
● At the cell-intrinsic level, deregulated MYC promotes a variety of tumor cell–autonomous processes, including a) uncontrolled proliferation: MYC promotes cell cycle entry and progression through repression of key inhibitors such as p16 and p21, allowing escape from senescence and cell cycle arrest even under genotoxic stress (101, 102); b) enhanced biosynthesis and metabolism: MYC stimulates ribosomal biogenesis and globally rewires metabolic pathways, upregulating nutrient transporters and glycolytic/glutaminolytic enzymes to sustain rapid biomass accumulation (103, 104); c) resistance to apoptosis and induction of stemness: MYC enhances DNA replication, suppresses apoptotic programs, and induces stem-like transcriptional states associated with tumorigenesis and therapeutic resistance (105–107); d) genomic instability: chronic MYC activation induces DNA breaks, chromosomal aberrations, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, fueling tumor evolution and heterogeneity (106, 108, 109); e) promotion of epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT): MYC directly represses E-cadherin and induces SNAIL and other EMT regulators, promoting invasion and metastasis (110, 111).
● At the cell-extrinsic level, MYC profoundly remodels the tumor microenvironment to sustain tumor growth through a) angiogenesis: MYC represses anti-angiogenic signaling and factors, including thrombospondin-1 (TSP1)-dependent angiogenic switch, to promote vascularization and nutrient supply (112–114); b) immune and stromal modulation: MYC reprograms immune and stromal components of the TME to create conditions conducive to tumor persistence and dissemination, which ultimately contributes to resistance to IO therapies - mechanisms that will be discussed in detail below (57, 76, 90, 115, 116).
MYC role in immune evasion
MYC is a central orchestrator of tumor immune evasion and a key mediator of resistance to IO therapies (57, 90, 115, 116). In fact, MYC modulates cytokine signaling, upregulates molecules that help cancer cells evade immune surveillance and secret compounds that recruit immunosuppressive and tumor-promoting cells (Figure 2).
Figure 2. MYC blocks immune surveillance and drives immune evasion and tumor-promoting inflammation. Deregulated MYC in cancer cells modulates cytokine signaling, upregulates molecules that facilitate immune escape, and secretes factors that remodel the tumor microenvironment (TME). MYC activates immunosuppressive signaling pathways through the secretion of inhibitory cytokines, recruiting immunosuppressive and tumor-promoting populations such as myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC), regulatory T cells (Treg) (via IL-6, IL-10, CCL17, CCL22 and TGF-β secretion), and immunosuppressive M2 macrophages (via NRF2, CCL2, CCL9, IL-13 and GAS6 secretion). MYC also suppresses anti-tumorigenic activity by downregulating MHC-I, IFN and IFN-derived molecules such as CXCL13 and by increasing IL-23 secretion, diminishing dendritic cell (DC) function and restricting the infiltration of CD8+ T cells, Th1 CD4+ T cells, B cells, and NK cells. Moreover, MYC-dependent upregulation of immune checkpoint molecules (PD-L1, CD47, B7-H3) in cancer cells further inhibits T and NK cell-mediated surveillance. Additionally, MYC creates an immunosuppressive niche through metabolic reprogramming, by consuming glucose, glutamine and cholesterol, acidifying the TME by lactate secretion. MYC is also capable of enhancing angiogenesis by directly repressing thrombospondin-1 (TSP1) or indirectly by secreting IL-1β, CCL2 and CCL5, recruiting endothelial cells, mast cells and cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAF), along with VEGF secretion by M2 macrophages. All these MYC-driven activities create an immune-privileged niche for immune evasion and cancer progression.
Activation of immunosuppressive signaling
More in detail, the presence of deregulated MYC in cancer cells can activate immunosuppressive signaling pathways through the secretion of inhibitory cytokines that ultimately facilitate immune evasion (76, 90, 117). It stimulates the secretion of interleukins IL-6, IL-10, cytokines CCL17, CCL22, and transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β), attracting myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and regulatory T cells (Tregs) to the tumor site (118–121). MYC-deregulated tumors can also produce NRF2, CCL2, CCL9, IL-13, and GAS6, recruiting macrophages and polarizing them into their immunosuppressive state, known as M2 state (118, 122–126). Additionally, MYC-driven tumors release the immunosuppressive molecules IL-1β, CCL2, and CCL5, promoting the recruitment of endothelial and mast cells that, together with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) secretion by M2 macrophages, enhance angiogenesis (118, 120, 127).
Suppression of anti-tumorigenic activity
Beyond activating immunosuppressive pathways, MYC-deregulated tumors also suppress anti-tumorigenic activity, both by inhibiting anti-cancer signaling and by activating immune checkpoint molecules. One of the primary mechanisms repressed by MYC is antigen processing and presentation. In this context, MYC downregulates both MHC-I and MHC-II molecules in several cancers, reducing the stimulation of cytotoxic T cells and NK cells, while diminishing the presentation activity of helper T cells (118, 128–133). Another signaling mechanism silenced in the presence of oncogenic MYC is the interferon pathway. In models of neuroblastoma, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), MYC attenuates the expression of type I interferons and IFN-derived molecules such as STAT1 and STAT2, lessening T cell response. This attenuation of the IFN pathway further limits CXCL13 production and reduces NK cell and B cell tumor infiltration (132, 134, 135). In addition, MYC-induced IL-23 secretion functions as a critical immunomodulatory factor that actively prevents T cells, B cells, and NK cells from infiltrating the tumor microenvironment (118, 125, 136). Moreover, MYC-deregulated tumors frequently upregulate immune checkpoint molecules to effectively neutralize anti-tumor immune responses and establish a protective immunosuppressive barrier. Three of these molecules are PD-L1 (CD274), CD47, and B7-H3 (CD276). Numerous studies have established the correlation between hyperactivated MYC and overexpression of the first two immune checkpoints: deregulated MYC directly induces the expression of both PD-L1 and CD47, interfering with the crosstalk between tumor cells and dendritic cells, weakening T cell response, and ultimately enhancing immune escape (51, 117, 118, 137–141). In the case of B7-H3 immune checkpoint, its MYC-driven overexpression inhibits T and NK cell-mediated immune surveillance (142, 143). All these MYC-derived modulations effectively create an immune-privileged niche for cancer progression.
Metabolic reprograming
As summarized in Figure 2, MYC also plays a crucial role in immunosuppression through metabolic reprogramming. Deregulated MYC boosts both glucose and glutamine metabolism in cancer cells, leading to T and NK cell suppression via nutrient competition, reduction of antigen presentation and fostering an immunosuppressive microenvironment by attracting M2 macrophages, Tregs, and MDSCs (90, 98, 115). MYC-amplified tumors orchestrate a fundamental metabolic shift from oxidative phosphorylation to glycolysis, known as Warburg effect, through the coordinated overexpression of key glycolytic enzymes including GLUT1, HK2, and LDHA (144–147). This leads to lactate accumulation, acidifying the tumor microenvironment and shifting it towards an immunosuppressive phenotype through attenuation of dendritic cells, M2 polarization of macrophages, suppression of cytolytic activity of T and NK cells, and overexpression of PD-1 by Tregs (148–152). In the case of glutamine metabolism, MYC leads to overexpression of glutamine synthetase (GS) (153), and extreme glutamine consumption by tumor cells creates a severely glutamine deprived environment, forcing T cells into a dysfunctional state with reduced cytotoxic activity without affecting Tregs, which can survive in glutamine-poor conditions (154, 155). Additionally, MYC upregulates glutaminase (GLS), modulating signaling pathways that promote the recruitment of M2 macrophages, Tregs, and MDSCs (156, 157). Lipid metabolism modulation by MYC has also been identified as a process vital for tumor cell survival and proliferation (158). MYC activity in some NSCLC and CRC enhances cholesterol intake and storage, which in turn reduces MYC ubiquitination and degradation while promoting all the MYC-associated immunosuppressive pathways (158–160). Related to this, MYC promotes de novo fatty acid synthesis and broader lipidogenesis by transcriptionally activating key lipogenic enzymes and cooperating with SREBP1 and other metabolic regulators. This supports membrane biogenesis, signaling lipids and energy storage in MYC-driven cancers (161).
Regulation of angiogenesis
Closely linked to the metabolic reprogramming of cancer cells to efficiently proliferate and adapt to reduced oxygen and nutrient availability is MYC capacity to enhance angiogenesis. As already mentioned before and illustrated in Figure 2, deregulated MYC can directly repress the expression of anti-angiogenic factors like TSP1 (112–114, 162, 163), or indirectly enhance angiogenesis via immunosuppressive cells. MYC-driven recruitment of endothelial and mast cells, along with VEGF secretion by M2 macrophages, stimulates angiogenesis in MYC-driven tumors (118, 120, 127). These myeloid-derived cells can also overexpress PD-L1, which further enhances the process (118). Furthermore, MYC-driven angiogenesis can also be induced by immune cells such as cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs). MYC-driven CAFs secrete cytokines that promote angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis (112). These characteristics complement the already established function of CAFs in promoting cell physical exclusion, as well as altering glucose metabolism by upregulating glycolytic enzymes, again reinforcing the intimate connection between metabolic reprogramming and angiogenesis in creating a tumor-promoting microenvironment (76, 164, 165).
While this review focuses on MYC as a central regulator of tumor immune evasion, immune responses are ultimately shaped by a complex interplay of oncogenic and tumor-suppressor pathways. Alterations in genes such as TP53, mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR), oncogenic KRAS, and tumor suppressors such as STK11/LKB1 are well-established modulators of tumor immunogenicity, influencing antigen presentation, interferon signaling, metabolic programs, and response to immune checkpoint blockade. Importantly, mutations in these pathways, and their co-occurrence, can substantially influence how MYC operates within both tumor cells and the tumor immune microenvironment, and MYC activity can, in turn, modulate the immune consequences of these alterations. As a result, the impact of MYC on tumor-intrinsic programs and immune regulation is highly tumor-specific and tissue-dependent. In this context, MYC functions less as an isolated driver and more as a transcriptional integrator that coordinates immune-relevant programs in a manner shaped by genetic and tissue context. Comprehensive discussions of these additional pathways have been reviewed extensively elsewhere (166–173).
MYC as a mechanism of resistance to immunotherapy
MYC deregulation rewires tumor-intrinsic signaling pathways to escape immune surveillance, while also remodels the TME to suppress antitumor immunity and reduce immunotherapy efficacy. It directly influences intrinsic and extrinsic mechanisms in primary, adaptive or acquired resistance to immunotherapy (Figure 3).
Figure 3. MYC mediates several mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy. MYC influences intrinsic and extrinsic processes in primary, adaptive and acquired resistance mechanisms. In primary resistance, deregulated MYC represses MHC-I and proteasome expression, IFN-derived JAK2 and STAT1, and WNT/β-catenin signaling, reducing antigen processing and presentation and contributing to immune exclusion. At the extrinsic level, MYC-derived VEGF and TGF-β activation, thrombospondin-1 (TSP1) repression and cancer associated fibroblasts (CAF) recruitment result in immune exclusion and enhanced angiogenesis. MYC regulates adaptive resistance by converting glucose and cholesterol into lactate and oxysterol, reprogramming tumor metabolism and promoting immunosuppression. Extrinsically, deregulated MYC fosters immunosuppressive cytokine (IL-19, TGF-β and VEGF) and chemokine (CCL2, CXCL5 and CXCL8) secretion, promoting M2 macrophage polarization, regulatory T cell (Treg) development and myeloid-derived suppressor cell (MDSC) recruitment, creating an immunosuppressive niche. In acquired resistance, MYC represses pro-apoptotic mediators such as BAX, induces stemness and EMT-associated transcription factors and disrupts mitochondrial structure, influencing apoptotic sensitivity and genomic stability. At the extrinsic level, MYC impairs anti-PD-(L)1 efficacy by upregulating secondary checkpoints such as TIM-3 and LAG-3, mediating T-cell exhaustion. Thus, MYC plays a pivotal role in the generation of resistance to immunotherapy.
Primary resistance
In the case of primary resistance, tumor-intrinsic factors such as the lack of neoantigen expression represent key drivers of ineffective immune responses from the onset of treatment. Loss or alteration of tumor-specific antigens—through antigen shedding, epitope mutations from genetic instability, or endocytic-antigen formation—facilitates immune evasion (174–176). Additionally, defects in antigen processing or presentation, such as impaired proteasome function or genetic and epigenetic alterations of MHC can contribute to immunotherapy resistance (177). Other intrinsic factors related to resistance include loss or mutation of beta 2 microglobulin (B2M), which disrupts the MHC-I complex, impairing antigen display (178). MYC overexpression attenuates antigen processing and presentation by repressing MHC-I and proteasome gene expression, thereby mimicking antigen-loss phenomena such as B2M deletion (179). These resistance mechanisms have been linked to MYC in NSCLC and CRC cancer models. Aberrant signaling pathways, particularly those linked to interferon-gamma (IFNγ), further promote resistance by upregulating PD-L1 or recruiting immunosuppressive lymphocytes (180). Prolonged IFNγ activation or mutations in the JAK1/2-STAT1 axis impair antigen presentation and favor tumor immune evasion (181, 182). Deregulated MYC can disrupt these pathways, including IFNγ signaling, through transcriptional suppression of JAK2 and STAT1, which limits effector T-cell recruitment and promotes immune exclusion in SCLC cell lines (183, 184). Additionally, dysregulation of other signaling pathways such as MAPK, PI3K and WNT pathways suppresses immune infiltration and activation. MAPK activation increases VEGF and IL-8, limiting cytotoxic lymphocytes, while WNT/β-catenin signaling excludes dendritic cells from tumors (185, 186). The WNT/β-catenin pathway is likewise influenced by MYC, contributing to dendritic cell exclusion within the TME (187). Together, these alterations hinder antigen processing, presentation and effector immune cell recruitment, collectively reducing immunotherapy efficacy and illustrating the complex molecular landscape underlying tumor immune escape mechanisms.
Tumor-extrinsic influences within the TME—such as stromal barriers, aberrant vasculature, and TGF-β-driven immunosuppression—further reinforce resistance. Dense stroma, made of extracellular matrix and fibroblasts, physically blocks T cells from entering tumors. Targeting stromal components like FAP of FAK can improve T-cell penetration and sensitivity to immunotherapy (188–190). Aberrant vasculature also worsens immune exclusion. The abnormal, disorganized tumor blood vessels impair efficient immune cell trafficking. Endothelial cells lining these vessels often express suppressive molecules that block T-cell adhesion and extravasation. In this context, vascular normalization therapy aims to restore healthy vessel function, improving immune cell access and treatment response (191–193). As depicted in Figure 3, MYC deregulation in cancer cells contributes to these extrinsic mechanisms by promoting angiogenesis and fibroblast-mediated fibrosis, which reshapes the TME into an immune-excluding niche. As already mentioned in previous sections, deregulated MYC induces VEGF, angiopoietin-2, and IL-8, while repressing anti-angiogenic factor TSP1, resulting in disorganized, leaky vasculature that fosters hypoxia and limits immune infiltration (112). Complementary to this, TGF-β secretion by both tumor and stromal cells can also potentiate immunosuppression, by inducing Tregs, inhibiting effector T-cell function, and promoting stromal fibrosis and abnormal vasculature. Moreover, high TGF-β signaling correlates with poor immune infiltration and resistance to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade (194). In this context, MYC overexpression activates TGF-β, PDGF and IL-6 signaling, stimulating fibroblast differentiation into CAFs that deposit collagen and fibronectin, which ultimately stiffens the matrix and blocks cytotoxic cells in different breast cancer subtypes (195, 196).
Adaptive resistance
The TME is profoundly influenced by the high metabolic demands of cancer cells. One of the consequences is the previously mentioned Warburg effect, that promotes lactic acid accumulation, hyaluronic acid production and acidosis, while oxygen deprivation leads to hypoxia. These factors can contribute to the acquisition of resistance in tumor cells, by inducing expression of CD44 and suppressing immune activity within the niche (197). MYC profoundly drives metabolic reprogramming by enhancing glycolysis and stabilizing HIF1α, which leads to lactic acid accumulation and acidosis, suppressing cytotoxic T-cell function and polarizing macrophages toward immunosuppressive phenotypes in ovarian cancer models (198, 199). Studies indicate that combining immune checkpoint inhibitors with hypoxia mitigation enhances treatment efficacy and clinical outcomes (200). Metabolic reprogramming in tumor cells also influences cholesterol oxidation, producing metabolites such as hydroxycholesterol and epoxycholesterol that inhibit dendritic and effector T cells while promoting immunosuppressive populations. Adenosine, which is also secreted by tumor cells, can attach to A2A receptors on cytotoxic T cells, leading to their inhibition and enhancing resistance to immunotherapies (201, 202). In this context, oncogenic MYC also dysregulates cholesterol metabolism, increasing intracellular cholesterol and oxysterol production that impair dendritic and effector T-cell activity (203). Collectively, these metabolic alterations create a hypoxic, nutrient-deprived niche that reinforces immune exclusion and resistance to checkpoint blockade therapies (204).
During adaptive resistance, the activation of the immune response can be compensated by the polarization of tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and Tregs, both of which suppress effector T-cell activity. TAMs, particularly the M2 phenotype, secrete proangiogenic and immunosuppressive factors such as VEGF, IL-10 and TGF-β, potentiating immune evasion (205). As already mentioned before, MYC orchestrates M2 polarization by inducing secretion of these molecules (118–121, 206). Immunosuppressive Tregs inhibit cytotoxic T-cell proliferation through checkpoint expression and cytokine secretion (207). IL-10 suppresses antigen presentation and effector T-cell cytokine production, while TGF-β inhibits T-cell infiltration and promotes Treg differentiation (208, 209). Deregulated MYC also supports Treg proliferation and activation, inducing suppression of cytotoxic T-cell responses (210). In addition, these immunosuppressive chemokines recruit MDSCs, which impair T-cell responses through arginase and nitric oxide production. Tumors secrete chemokines such as CXCL5, CXCL8 and CCL2, engaging receptors CXCR2 and CCR2 on MDSCs, promoting their influx into tumors. As summarized in Figure 3, MYC orchestrates the secretion of these immunosuppressive cytokines and chemokines that attract MDSCs, amplifying immune suppression in acute myeloid leukemia cells (117, 211). This chemokine-driven recruitment constitutes a hallmark of adaptive resistance by dampening cytotoxic pathways while preserving tumor cell survival (212).
Acquired resistance
As mentioned before, acquired resistance is typically driven by epigenetic remodeling, EMT transition, stemness induction and mitochondrial or caspase alterations. Epigenetic silencing through DNA methylation often represses key pro-apoptotic genes, including BAX, PUMA and CASP8, impairing immune mediated cell death. This effect stabilizes survival signals and reduces tumor immunogenicity even after initial therapy success. Aberrant methylation reshapes apoptotic thresholds, promoting immune evasion and therapeutic relapse (213, 214). MYC regulates some of the pro-apoptotic mediators such as BAX, modulating apoptotic thresholds and facilitating survival under immune pressure (215). EMT enhances tumor plasticity, invasiveness and immune evasion. Induction of EMT-associated transcription factors, such as SNAI1/2, ZEB1/2 or TWIST, correlates with reduced antigen presentation and resistance to CD8+ T-cell killing (216). Concurrent stemness traits such as ALDH1A1, CD44 and MYC-driven PD-L1 expression promote recurrence and persistence following checkpoint therapy. This EMT-stemness axis fosters immune “cold” phenotypes and facilitates long-term acquired resistance (46, 47). Deregulated MYC can promote EMT and stemness by inducing transcription factors and stem cell markers, thus enhancing tumor plasticity in TNBC cellular models (217). Moreover, defective mitochondrial dynamics disrupt apoptotic signaling and metabolic integrity. Aberrant mitochondrial fission-fusion balance leads to a truncated mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization (MOMP), producing sub-lethal caspase activation that triggers genomic instability and immune escape (218). MYC also controls mitochondrial structure and fission-fusion dynamics, influencing apoptotic sensitivity and genomic stability (219).
Regarding extrinsic mechanisms driving acquired resistance, chronic stimulation of immune checkpoints is a key factor. Prolonged exposure to ICI, such as anti-PD-1/PD-L1 or anti-CTLA-4, induces compensatory upregulation of secondary checkpoints, including TIM-3, LAG-3, TIGIT, BTLA and VISTA within tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (220). Their overexpression marks terminal T-cell exhaustion, characterized by diminished cytokine release, impaired cytotoxicity and defective proliferation. Studies in melanoma and NSCLC show that elevated TIM-3 or LAG-3 expression in post-treatment samples correlates with relapse after PD-1 therapy (221). As illustrated in Figure 3, there is work showing the interaction between MYC and expression of immune checkpoint LAG-3 in TNBC (222), leading to immunosuppression via T-cell exhaustion.
MYC inhibition to overcome IO resistance
Given MYC’s central role in driving oncogenic transcriptional programs and orchestrating immune evasion, therapeutic inhibition of MYC represents a promising strategy to restore tumor immunogenicity and sensitize tumors to immunotherapies. Nonetheless, efforts to directly target MYC have been hindered by its long-standing reputation as an “undruggable” protein, driven by multiple intrinsic features that challenge conventional drug discovery approaches. First, MYC is a nuclear transcription factor localized in the nuclei of cells, a compartment typically inaccessible to most compounds. Second, as a monomeric intrinsically disordered protein, MYC lacks well-defined hydrophobic pockets or enzymatic activity, precluding standard small molecule inhibitor design. Third, the MYC family comprises three paralogs (MYC, MYCN, and MYCL) that can partially compensate for one another, necessitating simultaneous inhibition for full therapeutic efficacy. Finally, MYC’s essential physiological role in normal cell growth and tissue regeneration has raised concerns that systemic inhibition could cause toxicity in healthy proliferative tissues. Despite these challenges, both direct and indirect strategies to modulate MYC activity have emerged, demonstrating promising preclinical and early clinical results.
Indirect strategies
Indirect MYC inhibitors exploit vulnerabilities in MYC transcription, translation, or stability. There are clear advantages to these strategies, as some of the compounds used were originally developed for other oncogenic targets and are already available or clinically advanced. However, they may not be ideal for specific MYC inhibition due to limited selectivity and potential off-target effects. These indirect approaches are numerous and mechanistically diverse, and while they have been recently reviewed elsewhere (96, 100, 223–225), several stand out as particularly relevant in the context of immunotherapy resistance and are discussed below. Compounds with ongoing clinical evaluation are summarized in Table 2, while those with either completed, inactive, or discontinued trials are described in the text for completeness.
Table 2. Indirect MYC inhibitors under clinical development (only those with ongoing clinical trials are shown).
G-quadruplex stabilizers such as CX-5461 (226) and CX-3543 (227) repress MYC transcription by stabilizing secondary DNA structures within the MYC promoter and ribosomal DNA, leading to replication stress, type I interferon activation, and increased tumor immunogenicity (228). Moreover, CX-5461 combined with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 enhanced therapeutic efficacy in CRC preclinical models (228, 229). CX-5461 has received FDA Fast Track designation and is being evaluated in multiple completed and ongoing phase I/II clinical trials, underscoring its therapeutic promise (230). Nonetheless, both agents suffer from off-target effects and unfavorable pharmacokinetics, with CX-3543 failing in clinical trials owing to limited bioavailability and strong plasma protein binding (227). Similarly, clinical trials with APTO-253, another G4-stabilizing agent, were halted due to manufacturing and solubility issues that led to a prolonged clinical hold, and ultimately the program was terminated due to insufficient clinical activity in the Phase I clinical trial (231). Others like IZCZ-3, QN-1, and IZTZ-1showed anticancer activity in preclinical models (232).
Similarly, CDK7 inhibitors [e.g. CT7001 (233), SY-1365 (234), SY-5609 (235), LY3405105 (236)) and CDK9 inhibitors (e.g. KB-0742 (237), CYC065 (238), dinaciclib (239), enitociclib (240)] suppress MYC transcriptional activity by blocking transcriptional initiation or elongation (241–244). Because inhibition of these transcriptional CDKs preferentially affects short-lived transcripts, including those encoding anti-apoptotic and cell cycle regulatory proteins, targeting this kinase family offers a rational strategy to blunt MYC-dependent transcriptional amplification (244). In addition to their direct antiproliferative effects, CDK7/9 blockade has been shown to downregulate PD-L1 expression, induce genomic instability triggering type I interferon responses, and enhance tumor immune infiltration, thereby sensitizing MYC-driven tumors to immune checkpoint blockade (245–248). For example, in SCLC, treatment with the CDK7i YKL-5–124 elicited immune response signaling and promoted activation of anti-tumor T cells and co-administration of YKL-5–124 with anti–PD-1 therapy led to a significant increase in overall survival compared with monotherapy (246). Similarly, in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), mice receiving the combination of a CDK9 inhibitor and an anti-PD-L1 antibody developed significantly smaller tumors and showed prolonged survival compared with those treated with either agent alone (247). Although preliminary pharmacodynamic data showing effective reduction of MYC expression are encouraging, as regulators of transcription, CDK7/9 inhibitors carry the risk of broad off-target effects by interfering with global transcription, which may constrain their therapeutic window. Ongoing clinical trials will be key to determine whether these inhibitors can selectively target MYC-driven cancers while maintaining an acceptable safety profile.
Other kinase inhibitors such as Aurora kinase A (Alisertib (249), MK-5108 (250), TAS-119 (251)) and PLK1 inhibitors (onvansertib (252), volasertib (253), CYC140 (254)) destabilize MYC at the post-translational level, triggering mitotic arrest and apoptosis (249, 250, 255), possibly enhancing immune recognition. Mechanistically, Aurora A kinase interacts with and stabilizes MYC by preventing its ubiquitin-mediated degradation; thus, Aurora A inhibition promotes MYC destabilization and proteasomal turnover (255, 256). Similarly, PLK1 inhibition interferes with MYC phosphorylation events required for its stability and transcriptional activity (257). By promoting MYC degradation, these compounds attenuate MYC-driven transcriptional programs and restore anti-tumor immune responses when combined with immunotherapies. For instance, alisertib has been shown to remodel the tumor immune microenvironment by depleting tumor-promoting myeloid populations and enriching cytotoxic T lymphocytes (258, 259). Moreover, it showed synergistic therapeutic effects when combined with PD-L1 and CTLA-4 blockade in models of breast (258) and papillomavirus-driven cancers (259). In the same line, PLK1 inhibitors have also been shown to exert synergistic effects in combination with immunotherapy (260). In vivo studies demonstrated that combining a PLK1 inhibitor with PD-L1 blockade markedly reduced tumor growth compared to either agent alone in both lung (261) and pancreatic cancers (262).
Another indirect strategy to inhibit MYC involves PP2A activators (e.g., DT-061 (263), LB-100 (264)), which restore phosphatase activity lost in MYC-driven cancers. Activation of PP2A promotes dephosphorylation of MYC at Ser62, leading to its proteasomal degradation (265, 266). By reducing MYC levels in this way, PP2A activators can restore antitumor immune surveillance and enhance tumor sensitivity to immunotherapies (267). In CRC, LB-100 treatment caused exon skipping and increased alternative splicing, inducing neoantigen expression (268) and, in a glioblastoma model, enhanced antitumor efficacy of PD-1 blockade (269).
BET inhibitors (e.g., JQ1 (270), OTX015 (271), CPI-0610 (272), GSK525762 (273, 274), BMS-986158 (275), INCB057643 (276), AZD5153 (277), ZEN-3694 (278)) block BRD4-dependent chromatin remodeling and MYC transcription, thereby restoring interferon signaling and antigen presentation, and are under active investigation in combination with immunotherapy (270, 279, 280). JQ1 was the first-in-class compound to establish proof-of-concept for BET inhibition in cancer therapy; however, its suboptimal in vivo pharmacokinetic profile has prevented its advancement to clinical trials. Despite this, preclinical studies have shown that JQ1 enhances antitumor immunity by upregulating MHC-I expression, downregulating PD-L1, and synergizing with anti-PD-1/L1 therapies across multiple cancer models (281–286). Despite the promising preclinical activity of BET inhibitors, clinical translation has proven challenging. The majority of compounds have been discontinued or had their clinical trials terminated due to limited efficacy or tolerability issues. Furthermore, BET inhibitors downregulate other genes beyond MYC, suggesting that their anticancer effects are not solely MYC-dependent (66). Only a few agents, such as AZD5153 and ZEN-3694, remain under active clinical investigation. Notably, in preclinical models, AZD5153 has been shown to promote antitumor immunity by depolarizing immunosuppressive M2 macrophages (287) and increasing sensitivity to anti-PD-L1 therapy (288).
Finally, epigenomic modulation has also been pursued to indirectly target MYC. OTX-2002 is a first-in-class mRNA-based epigenomic modulator that represses MYC pre-transcriptionally by establishing targeted epigenetic marks. Preclinical studies in HCC demonstrated strong anti-tumor activity, downregulation of PD-L1 and improved therapeutic activity when combined with anti-PD-(L)1 antibodies. Interestingly, the therapeutic effect was accompanied by a reduction of Tregs in the TME (289). Preliminary clinical data indicate a favorable safety profile and on-target epigenetic effects (290).
Direct strategies
The challenges of indirect MYC inhibitors have driven the pursuit of direct MYC-targeting approaches designed to engage the oncoprotein itself, offering a more selective and mechanistically precise means of inhibiting MYC and restoring tumor immune surveillance. Direct MYC inhibitors aim to disrupt MYC function at the protein level, either by preventing its dimerization with MAX, blocking DNA binding, or promoting MYC degradation (100, 223–225). Such strategies once thought unfeasible have now entered preclinical and early clinical evaluation, showing promising signs of efficacy and tolerability. The following section highlights the most advanced and promising direct MYC inhibitors, with those currently undergoing clinical testing summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Direct MYC inhibitors under clinical development (only those with ongoing clinical trials are shown).
The most advanced direct MYC inhibitor in clinical trials is OMO-103, a MYC dominant negative. It is the clinical formulated drug product derived from Omomyc, a 91 amino acid mini-protein based on the MYC b-HLH-LZ domain engineered with four amino acid substitutions that alter its dimerization properties (292). Omomyc can form both homodimers and heterodimers with MYC and MAX. While Omomyc/Omomyc and Omomyc/MAX dimers bind E-box sequences as transcriptionally inactive complexes, Omomyc/MYC dimers cannot bind DNA (292, 293). Through this dual mechanism of action - sequestering MYC away from DNA and occupying its target promoters with repressive complexes - Omomyc acts as a dominant-negative inhibitor of MYC transcriptional activity. Extensive preclinical studies have demonstrated that Omomyc-mediated MYC inhibition is both highly effective and well tolerated, suppressing tumor growth and inducing regression across multiple cancer types, irrespective of tissue origin or oncogenic driver (49, 52, 113, 294–298). In line with MYC’s capacity to drive tumorigenesis through both cell-intrinsic and -extrinsic mechanisms, Omomyc exerts dual anticancer actions directly suppressing tumor cell growth while simultaneously reshaping the surrounding microenvironment. For example, Omomyc treatment in a KRAS-driven NSCLC mouse model increased immune infiltration, notably recruiting T cells to the tumor site (295). Additionally, a phylomeric form of Omomyc reduced PD-L1 expression in a model of TNBC (299). Beyond cancer models, Omomyc-mediated c-MYC inhibition in mature macrophages triggered extensive transcriptomic remodeling in a tuberculosis model, upregulating key inflammatory pathways such as IFNγ, TNFα, and IFNα responses, and underscoring its broad immunomodulatory potential (300). Together, these effects contribute to a more immunostimulatory tumor milieu and may sensitize tumors to immune checkpoint blockade. OMO-103 is now being evaluated in Phase Ib/II clinical trials.
IDP-121 and IDP-410 are next-generation stapled peptide MYC inhibitors that target distinct members of the MYC oncogene family, c-MYC and N-MYC respectively. Both compounds disrupt MYC’s interaction with MAX and promote MYC monomer degradation. IDP-121 has demonstrated antitumor activity across multiple preclinical hematologic and solid tumor models (301) and has recently entered clinical evaluation, while IDP-410 reduced growth and vascularization in vivo in a glioblastoma mouse model, suggesting a link between N-MYC function and mesenchymal or angiogenic programs (302). To date, no further public data have been released for either compound, and their potential effects on the tumor immune microenvironment remain unexplored.
Other small molecules have been developed to target the MYC–MAX interaction, including MYCi361 and its optimized analogue MYCi975. These compounds disrupt MYC–MAX dimerization and promote phosphorylation of MYC at T58, leading to proteasome-mediated degradation (303). In preclinical models, MYCi361 suppressed tumor growth and enhanced immune infiltration, increasing CD3+ T cells, IFNγ+ CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, TNFα+ CD8+ cells, dendritic cells, and NK cells, while upregulating PD-L1 and sensitizing tumors to anti-PD-1 therapy. Although MYCi361 displayed a narrow therapeutic window, MYCi975 showed improved tolerability while retaining immunomodulatory activity, including increased pT58, PD-L1 expression, and enhanced infiltration of T, B, and NK cells. Combination therapy with anti-PD-1 yielded synergistic tumor suppression (303). Similarly, in TNBC and head-and-neck cancer mouse models, MYCi975 increased CD8+ T-cell infiltration (304, 305), and in TNBC, co-treatment with anti-PD-L1 produced stronger tumor growth inhibition than either agent alone (304). An optimized version of MYCi975 is expected to enter clinical evaluation in the near future (306).
Other direct MYC-targeting strategies aim to destabilize MYC by promoting its degradation. One such approach involves the small-molecule degrader WBC100, which targets MYC proteostasis rather than dimerization. However, for MYC, this strategy is challenging due to the protein’s inherently short half-life and continuous synthesis in cancer cells, which could necessitate frequent or sustained dosing of any therapy that relies solely on MYC degradation. In preclinical models, oral WBC100 administration markedly reduced MYC protein levels, inhibited tumor growth, and prolonged survival without notable toxicity (307). The compound is currently being evaluated in a Phase I clinical trial for patients with advanced solid tumors overexpressing c-MYC. To date, however, no clinical data or evidence regarding its potential effects on the tumor immune microenvironment have been reported.
Alternative strategies to inhibit MYC focus on blocking its mRNA translation using antisense oligonucleotides or RNA interference (RNAi) technologies such as siRNA or shRNA. Among these, DCR-MYC, a MYC-targeting siRNA, advanced to Phase I/II clinical trials but was discontinued due to insufficient gene-silencing efficacy (308). Although the immunological effects of MYC-targeted RNA therapies have not been directly characterized, MYC silencing is expected to indirectly enhance antitumor immunity by reversing MYC-driven immunosuppression. Thus, future studies integrating RNA-based MYC inhibition with immune checkpoint blockade could provide valuable insights into their potential immunomodulatory synergy.
While this review focuses on the immunomodulatory effects of MYC inhibition, it is important to note that many of the compounds discussed above also impact classical tumor-intrinsic mechanisms of oncogenesis induced by MYC. MYC-targeted therapies can suppress proliferation, induce apoptosis, and impair metabolic programs that are critical for tumor growth and survival. For example, CDK7/9 inhibitors, Aurora kinase A inhibitors, and direct MYC inhibitors such as Omomyc not only enhance tumor immunogenicity but also reduce MYC-driven transcriptional amplification of genes involved in cell cycle progression, ribosome biogenesis, and DNA replication. However, the extent to which each strategy affects the full spectrum of MYC functions varies, reflecting differences in mechanism of action and target specificity. Understanding how MYC inhibition balances tumor-intrinsic and immune-mediated effects will be crucial for choosing the most optimal combination therapies.
Conclusions
MYC plays a critical role not only in tumor initiation, progression, and maintenance but also as a central driver of immune evasion and resistance to immunotherapies. By orchestrating multiple cell-intrinsic and microenvironmental tumorigenic programs, MYC enables cancer cells to evade immune surveillance and adapt to therapeutic pressures. Its deregulation disrupts antigen presentation, alters signaling pathways, remodels the tumor microenvironment, and promotes immunosuppressive metabolic and cellular conditions that collectively undermine anti-tumor immunity. The broad influence of MYC across these diverse mechanisms highlights its critical position as a master regulator of resistance to immune checkpoint blockade and other immunotherapies.
Notably, MYC is rarely the primary driver mutation in cancer, and immune suppression often emerges in the context of co-occurring oncogenic events and tumor suppressor alterations. In this setting, MYC frequently acts downstream or in parallel to initiating oncogenic lesions, integrating signals from co-mutations and tissue-specific cues to shape both tumor-intrinsic programs and the tumor immune microenvironment. Consequently, the relationship between MYC activation and immune dysfunction can reflect both direct MYC-driven effects and immune suppression that develops in parallel during transformation, in a manner that is highly tumor- and tissue-dependent.
Finally, MYC is currently being targeted both directly and indirectly through emerging therapeutic strategies, offering promising avenues to overcome immunotherapeutic resistance. Direct inhibitors of MYC and agents targeting its regulatory pathways have demonstrated the ability to restore immune sensitivity and enhance immunotherapy efficacy in preclinical models. These findings underscore the potential of MYC inhibition as a powerful adjunct to current immunotherapies, aiming to improve patient outcomes by reversing immune escape and resistance mechanisms in cancer.
Author contributions
ÍG-L: Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Conceptualization. MV-BM: Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. SC-S: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. LS: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Resources, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This review authors have received funding from the European Research Council (ERC-2023-ADG 101142260), the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, grant num. PLEC2021-007959, the European Union through the NextGenerationEU program in the context of the Plan de Recuperacion, Transformacion y Resiliencia (RETOS; CPP2022-009808), by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and the 2nd BBVA Foundation Comprehensive Program of Cancer Immunotherapy & Immunology (CAIMI-II) grant. I.G.-L. was supported by a fellowship from the University Teacher Training Program (FPU), Ministry of Universities (FPU20/04812).
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge VHIO (Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology) and the Cellex Foundation for providing research facilities and equipment, and the CERCA Programme from the Generalitat de Catalunya for their support on this research. They also acknowledge the State Agency for Research (Agencia Estatal de Investigación) for financial support as Center of Excellence Severo Ochoa (no. CEX2020-001024-S/AEI/10.13039/501100011033).
Conflict of interest
Authors SC-S and LS were employed by Peptomyc S.L.
The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The handling editor CK declared a past co-authorship with the author LS.
Generative AI statement
Generative AI was used to check for grammar issues and language revision. The authors declare that Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Institute CR. From Theory To Therapy: The History of Cancer immunotherapy. New York: Cancer Research Institute (2025).
2. Dobosz P and Dzieciatkowski T. The intriguing history of cancer immunotherapy. Front Immunol. (2019) 10:2965. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02965
3. Esfahani K, Roudaia L, Buhlaiga N, Del Rincon SV, Papneja N, and Miller WH Jr. A review of cancer immunotherapy: from the past, to the present, to the future. Curr Oncol. (2020) 27:S87–97. doi: 10.3747/co.27.5223
4. Dunn GP, Old LJ, and Schreiber RD. The immunobiology of cancer immunosurveillance and immunoediting. Immunity. (2004) 21:137–48. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2004.07.017
5. Robert C. A decade of immune-checkpoint inhibitors in cancer therapy. Nat Commun. (2020) 11:3801. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17670-y
6. Institute CR. CRI cancer immunotherapy insights + Impact. New York: Cancer Research Institute (2025).
7. Isaacs A and Lindenmann J. Virus interference. I. The interferon. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. (1957) 147:258–67. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1957.0048
8. Golomb HM, Jacobs A, Fefer A, Ozer H, Thompson J, Portlock C, et al. Alpha-2 interferon therapy of hairy-cell leukemia: a multicenter study of 64 patients. J Clin Oncol. (1986) 4:900–5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1986.4.6.900
9. Morgan DA, Ruscetti FW, and Gallo R. Selective in vitro growth of T lymphocytes from normal human bone marrows. Science. (1976) 193:1007–8. doi: 10.1126/science.181845
10. Rosenberg SA, Packard BS, Aebersold PM, Solomon D, Topalian SL, Toy ST, et al. Use of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and interleukin-2 in the immunotherapy of patients with metastatic melanoma. A preliminary report. N Engl J Med. (1988) 319:1676–80. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198812223192527
11. Tian Y, Xie D, and Yang L. Engineering strategies to enhance oncolytic viruses in cancer immunotherapy. Signal Transduct Targ Ther. (2022) 7:117. doi: 10.1038/s41392-022-00951-x
12. Andtbacka RH, Kaufman HL, Collichio F, Amatruda T, Senzer N, Chesney J, et al. Talimogene laherparepvec improves durable response rate in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. (2015) 33:2780–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.58.3377
13. Johnson DB, Puzanov I, and Kelley MC. Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) for the treatment of advanced melanoma. Immunotherapy. (2015) 7:611–9. doi: 10.2217/imt.15.35
14. Lin D, Shen Y, and Liang T. Oncolytic virotherapy: basic principles, recent advances and future directions. Signal Transduct Targ Ther. (2023) 8:156. doi: 10.1038/s41392-023-01407-6
15. Old LJ, Clarke DA, and Benacerraf B. Effect of Bacillus Calmette-Guerin infection on transplanted tumours in the mouse. Nature. (1959) 184:291–2. doi: 10.1038/184291a0
16. Morales A and Eidinger D. Bacillus Calmette-Guerin in the treatment of adenocarcinoma of the kidney. J Urol. (1976) 115:377–80. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)59210-1
17. Morales A, Eidinger D, and Bruce AW. Intracavitary Bacillus Calmette-Guerin in the treatment of superficial bladder tumors. J Urol. (1976) 116:180–3. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)58737-6
18. Kantoff PW, Higano CS, Shore ND, Berger ER, Small EJ, Penson DF, et al. Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. (2010) 363:411–22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1001294
19. Melero I, Shuford WW, Newby SA, Aruffo A, Ledbetter JA, Hellstrom KE, et al. Monoclonal antibodies against the 4-1BB T-cell activation molecule eradicate established tumors. Nat Med. (1997) 3:682–5. doi: 10.1038/nm0697-682
20. Vinay DS and Kwon BS. Immunotherapy of cancer with 4-1BB. Mol Cancer Ther. (2012) 11:1062–70. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-11-0677
21. Vinay DS and Kwon BS. 4-1BB (CD137), an inducible costimulatory receptor, as a specific target for cancer therapy. BMB Rep. (2014) 47:122–9. doi: 10.5483/BMBRep.2014.47.3.283
22. Leung HT, Bradshaw J, Cleaveland JS, and Linsley PS. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated molecule-4, a high-avidity receptor for CD80 and CD86, contains an intracellular localization motif in its cytoplasmic tail. J Biol Chem. (1995) 270:25107–14. doi: 10.1074/jbc.270.42.25107
23. Hodi FS, O'Day SJ, McDermott DF, Weber RW, Sosman JA, Haanen JB, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. (2010) 363:711–23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1003466
24. Leach DR, Krummel MF, and Allison JP. Enhancement of antitumor immunity by CTLA-4 blockade. Science. (1996) 271:1734–6. doi: 10.1126/science.271.5256.1734
25. Ishida Y, Agata Y, Shibahara K, and Honjo T. Induced expression of PD-1, a novel member of the immunoglobulin gene superfamily, upon programmed cell death. EMBO J. (1992) 11:3887–95. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1992.tb05481.x
26. Freeman GJ, Long AJ, Iwai Y, Bourque K, Chernova T, Nishimura H, 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) 192:1027–34. doi: 10.1084/jem.192.7.1027
27. Dong H, Zhu G, Tamada K, and Chen L. B7-H1, a third member of the B7 family, co-stimulates T-cell proliferation and interleukin-10 secretion. Nat Med. (1999) 5:1365–9. doi: 10.1038/70932
28. Iwai Y, Ishida M, Tanaka Y, Okazaki T, Honjo T, and Minato N. Involvement of PD-L1 on tumor cells in the escape from host immune system and tumor immunotherapy by PD-L1 blockade. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2002) 99:12293–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.192461099
29. Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A, Hodi FS, Hwu WJ, Kefford R, et al. Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti-PD-1) in melanoma. N Engl J Med. (2013) 369:134–44. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1305133
30. Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, Spigel DR, Steins M, Ready NE, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. (2015) 373:1627–39. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1507643
31. Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, Crino L, Eberhardt WE, Poddubskaya E, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. (2015) 373:123–35. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1504627
32. Rosenberg JE, Hoffman-Censits J, Powles T, van der Heijden MS, Balar AV, Necchi A, et al. Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet. (2016) 387:1909–20. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00561-4
33. Rosenberg SA, Spiess P, and Lafreniere R. A new approach to the adoptive immunotherapy of cancer with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Science. (1986) 233:1318–21. doi: 10.1126/science.3489291
34. Shi Y, Strasser A, Green DR, Latz E, Mantovani A, and Melino G. Legacy of the discovery of the T-cell receptor: 40 years of shaping basic immunology and translational work to develop novel therapies. Cell Mol Immunol. (2024) 21:790–7. doi: 10.1038/s41423-024-01168-4
35. Eshhar Z, Waks T, Gross G, and Schindler DG. Specific activation and targeting of cytotoxic lymphocytes through chimeric single chains consisting of antibody-binding domains and the gamma or zeta subunits of the immunoglobulin and T-cell receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (1993) 90:720–4. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.2.720
36. Krause A, Guo HF, Latouche JB, Tan C, Cheung NK, and Sadelain M. Antigen-dependent CD28 signaling selectively enhances survival and proliferation in genetically modified activated human primary T lymphocytes. J Exp Med. (1998) 188:619–26. doi: 10.1084/jem.188.4.619
37. Kalos M, Levine BL, Porter DL, Katz S, Grupp SA, Bagg A, et al. T cells with chimeric antigen receptors have potent antitumor effects and can establish memory in patients with advanced leukemia. Sci Transl Med. (2011) 3:95ra73. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002842
38. Porter DL, Levine BL, Kalos M, Bagg A, and June CH. Chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells in chronic lymphoid leukemia. N Engl J Med. (2011) 365:725–33. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1103849
39. Maude SL, Laetsch TW, Buechner J, Rives S, Boyer M, Bittencourt H, et al. Tisagenlecleucel in children and young adults with B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med. (2018) 378:439–48. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1709866
40. Schuster SJ, Bishop MR, Tam CS, Waller EK, Borchmann P, McGuirk JP, et al. Tisagenlecleucel in adult relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. (2019) 380:45–56. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804980
41. Neelapu SS, Locke FL, Bartlett NL, Lekakis LJ, Miklos DB, Jacobson CA, et al. Axicabtagene ciloleucel CAR T-cell therapy in refractory large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. (2017) 377:2531–44. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1707447
42. D'Angelo SP, Araujo DM, Abdul Razak AR, Agulnik M, Attia S, Blay JY, et al. Afamitresgene autoleucel for advanced synovial sarcoma and myxoid round cell liposarcoma (SPEARHEAD-1): an international, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet. (2024) 403:1460–71. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00319-2
43. Spotlight on cancer immunotherapies. Nat Biotechnol. (2025) 43:453–4. doi: 10.1038/s41587-025-02645-5
44. Said SS and Ibrahim WN. Cancer resistance to immunotherapy: comprehensive insights with future perspectives. Pharmaceutics. (2023) 15:1143. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15041143
45. Bai R, Chen N, Li L, Du N, Bai L, Lv Z, et al. Mechanisms of cancer resistance to immunotherapy. Front Oncol. (2020) 10:1290. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01290
46. Sharma P, Hu-Lieskovan S, Wargo JA, and Ribas A. Primary, adaptive, and acquired resistance to cancer immunotherapy. Cell. (2017) 168:707–23. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.017
47. Bennett DC. Genetics of melanoma progression: the rise and fall of cell senescence. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. (2016) 29:122–40. doi: 10.1111/pcmr.12422
48. Singleton KR, Crawford L, Tsui E, Manchester HE, Maertens O, Liu X, et al. Melanoma therapeutic strategies that select against resistance by exploiting MYC-driven evolutionary convergence. Cell Rep. (2017) 21:2796–812. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.11.022
49. Zacarias-Fluck MF, Masso-Valles D, Giuntini F, Gonzalez-Larreategui I, Kaur J, Casacuberta-Serra S, et al. Reducing MYC's transcriptional footprint unveils a good prognostic gene signature in melanoma. Genes Dev. (2023) 37:303–20. doi: 10.1101/gad.350078.122
50. Shroff EH, Eberlin LS, Dang VM, Gouw AM, Gabay M, Adam SJ, et al. MYC oncogene overexpression drives renal cell carcinoma in a mouse model through glutamine metabolism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2015) 112:6539–44. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1507228112
51. Liang MQ, Yu FQ, and Chen C. C-Myc regulates PD-L1 expression in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Am J Transl Res. (2020) 12:379–88.
52. Annibali D, Whitfield JR, Favuzzi E, Jauset T, Serrano E, Cuartas I, et al. Myc inhibition is effective against glioma and reveals a role for Myc in proficient mitosis. Nat Commun. (2014) 5:4632. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5632
53. Cyberski TF, Singh A, Korzinkin M, Mishra V, Pun F, Shen L, et al. Acquired resistance to immunotherapy and chemoradiation in MYC amplified head and neck cancer. NPJ Precis Oncol. (2024) 8:114. doi: 10.1038/s41698-024-00606-w
54. Qiu X, Boufaied N, Hallal T, Feit A, de Polo A, Luoma AM, et al. MYC drives aggressive prostate cancer by disrupting transcriptional pause release at androgen receptor targets. Nat Commun. (2022) 13:2559. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-30257-z
55. Giuntini F, Gonzalez-Larreategui I, Herencia-Ropero A, Casacuberta-Serra S, Zacarias-Fluck MF, Arnal M, et al. MYC inhibition by Omomyc causes DNA damage and overcomes PARPi resistance in breast cancer. Cell Rep. (2025) 44:116604. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2025.116604
56. Kalkat M, De Melo J, Hickman KA, Lourenco C, Redel C, Resetca D, et al. MYC deregulation in primary human cancers. Genes (Basel). (2017) 8:151. doi: 10.3390/genes8060151
57. Casacuberta-Serra S, Gonzalez-Larreategui I, Capitan-Leo D, and Soucek L. MYC and KRAS cooperation: from historical challenges to therapeutic opportunities in cancer. Signal Transduct Targ Ther. (2024) 9:205. doi: 10.1038/s41392-024-01907-z
58. Imielinski M, Berger AH, Hammerman PS, Hernandez B, Pugh TJ, Hodis E, et al. Mapping the hallmarks of lung adenocarcinoma with massively parallel sequencing. Cell. (2012) 150:1107–20. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.08.029
59. Masso-Valles D, Beaulieu ME, and Soucek LMYC. MYCL, and MYCN as therapeutic targets in lung cancer. Expert Opin Ther Targ. (2020) 24:101–14. doi: 10.1080/14728222.2020.1723548
60. Beer S, Zetterberg A, Ihrie RA, McTaggart RA, Yang Q, Bradon N, et al. Developmental context determines latency of MYC-induced tumorigenesis. PloS Biol. (2004) 2:e332. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020332
61. Knight JRP, Alexandrou C, Skalka GL, Vlahov N, Pennel K, Officer L, et al. MNK Inhibition Sensitizes KRAS-Mutant Colorectal Cancer to mTORC1 Inhibition by Reducing eIF4E Phosphorylation and c-MYC Expression. Cancer Discov. (2021) 11:1228–47. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0652
62. Ruan H, Leibowitz BJ, Peng Y, Shen L, Chen L, Kuang C, et al. Targeting Myc-driven stress vulnerability in mutant KRAS colorectal cancer. Mol Biomed. (2022) 3:10. doi: 10.1186/s43556-022-00070-7
63. Stock C, Kager L, Fink FM, Gadner H, and Ambros PF. Chromosomal regions involved in the pathogenesis of osteosarcomas. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. (2000) 28:329–36. doi: 10.1002/1098-2264(200007)28:3<329::AID-GCC11>3.0.CO;2-F
64. Tran D, Verma K, Ward K, Diaz D, Kataria E, Torabi A, et al. Functional genomics analysis reveals a MYC signature associated with a poor clinical prognosis in liposarcomas. Am J Pathol. (2015) 185:717–28. doi: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2014.11.024
65. Williamson D, Lu YJ, Gordon T, Sciot R, Kelsey A, Fisher C, et al. Relationship between MYCN copy number and expression in rhabdomyosarcomas and correlation with adverse prognosis in the alveolar subtype. J Clin Oncol. (2005) 23:880–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.11.078
66. Duffy MJ, O'Grady S, Tang M, and Crown J. MYC as a target for cancer treatment. Cancer Treat Rev. (2021) 94:102154. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2021.102154
67. Martinez-Martin S, Beaulieu ME, and Soucek L. Targeting MYC-driven lymphoma: lessons learned and future directions. Cancer Drug Resist. (2023) 6:205–22. doi: 10.20517/cdr.2022.127
68. Martinez-Martin S and Soucek L. MYC inhibitors in multiple myeloma. Cancer Drug Resist. (2021) 4:842–65. doi: 10.20517/cdr.2021.55
69. Mikulasova A, Ashby C, Tytarenko RG, Qu P, Rosenthal A, Dent JA, et al. Microhomology-mediated end joining drives complex rearrangements and overexpression of MYC and PVT1 in multiple myeloma. Haematologica. (2020) 105:1055–66. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2019.217927
70. Tiacci E, Schiavoni G, Forconi F, Santi A, Trentin L, Ambrosetti A, et al. Simple genetic diagnosis of hairy cell leukemia by sensitive detection of the BRAF-V600E mutation. Blood. (2012) 119:192–5. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-08-371179
71. Tiacci E, Trifonov V, Schiavoni G, Holmes A, Kern W, Martelli MP, et al. BRAF mutations in hairy-cell leukemia. N Engl J Med. (2011) 364:2305–15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1014209
73. Meyer N and Penn LZ. Reflecting on 25 years with MYC. Nat Rev Cancer. (2008) 8:976–90. doi: 10.1038/nrc2231
74. Bhardwaj N, Das G, and Srinivasan R. Neuroblastoma-derived v-myc avian myelocytomatosis viral related oncogene or MYCN gene. J Clin Pathol. (2023) 76:518–23. doi: 10.1136/jcp-2022-208476
75. Liu Z, Chen SS, Clarke S, Veschi V, and Thiele CJ. Targeting MYCN in pediatric and adult cancers. Front Oncol. (2020) 10:623679. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.623679
76. Doha ZO and Sears RC. Unraveling MYC's role in orchestrating tumor intrinsic and tumor microenvironment interactions driving tumorigenesis and drug resistance. Pathophysiology. (2023) 30:400–19. doi: 10.3390/pathophysiology30030031
77. Lutterbach B and Hann SR. Hierarchical phosphorylation at N-terminal transformation-sensitive sites in c-Myc protein is regulated by mitogens and in mitosis. Mol Cell Biol. (1994) 14:5510–22. doi: 10.1128/mcb.14.8.5510-5522.1994
78. Krystal G, Birrer M, Way J, Nau M, Sausville E, Thompson C, et al. Multiple mechanisms for transcriptional regulation of the myc gene family in small-cell lung cancer. Mol Cell Biol. (1988) 8:3373–81. doi: 10.1128/mcb.8.8.3373-3381.1988
80. Sears R, Nuckolls F, Haura E, Taya Y, Tamai K, and Nevins JR. Multiple Ras-dependent phosphorylation pathways regulate Myc protein stability. Genes Dev. (2000) 14:2501–14. doi: 10.1101/gad.836800
81. Lavigne P, Crump MP, Gagne SM, Hodges RS, Kay CM, and Sykes BD. Insights into the mechanism of heterodimerization from the 1H-NMR solution structure of the c-Myc-Max heterodimeric leucine zipper. J Mol Biol. (1998) 281:165–81. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1998.1914
82. McDuff FO, Naud JF, Montagne M, Sauve S, and Lavigne P. The Max homodimeric b-HLH-LZ significantly interferes with the specific heterodimerization between the c-Myc and Max b-HLH-LZ in absence of DNA: a quantitative analysis. J Mol Recognit. (2009) 22:261–9. doi: 10.1002/jmr.938
83. Patel JH, Loboda AP, Showe MK, Showe LC, and McMahon SB. Analysis of genomic targets reveals complex functions of MYC. Nat Rev Cancer. (2004) 4:562–8. doi: 10.1038/nrc1393
84. Dang CV. Enigmatic MYC conducts an unfolding systems biology symphony. Genes Cancer. (2010) 1:526–31. doi: 10.1177/1947601910378742
85. Dang CV, O’Donnell KA, Zeller KI, Nguyen T, Osthus RC, and Li F. The c-Myc target gene network. Semin Cancer Biol. (2006) 16:253–64. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2006.07.014
86. Amati B, Dalton S, Brooks MW, Littlewood TD, Evan GI, and Land H. Transcriptional activation by the human c-Myc oncoprotein in yeast requires interaction with Max. Nature. (1992) 359:423–6. doi: 10.1038/359423a0
87. Mao DY, Watson JD, Yan PS, Barsyte-Lovejoy D, Khosravi F, Wong WW, et al. Analysis of Myc bound loci identified by CpG island arrays shows that Max is essential for Myc-dependent repression. Curr Biol. (2003) 13:882–6. doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00297-5
88. Patel JH and McMahon SB. Targeting of Miz-1 is essential for Myc-mediated apoptosis. J Biol Chem. (2006) 281:3283–9. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M513038200
89. Patel JH and McMahon SB. BCL2 is a downstream effector of MIZ-1 essential for blocking c-MYC-induced apoptosis. J Biol Chem. (2007) 282:5–13. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M609138200
90. Dhanasekaran R, Deutzmann A, Mahauad-Fernandez WD, Hansen AS, Gouw AM, and Felsher DW. The MYC oncogene - the grand orchestrator of cancer growth and immune evasion. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. (2022) 19:23–36. doi: 10.1038/s41571-021-00549-2
91. Pippa R and Odero MD. The role of MYC and PP2A in the initiation and progression of myeloid leukemias. Cells. (2020) 9:544. doi: 10.3390/cells9030544
92. Yeh E, Cunningham M, Arnold H, Chasse D, Monteith T, Ivaldi G, et al. A signalling pathway controlling c-Myc degradation that impacts oncogenic transformation of human cells. Nat Cell Biol. (2004) 6:308–18. doi: 10.1038/ncb1110
93. Murphy DJ, Junttila MR, Pouyet L, Karnezis A, Shchors K, Bui DA, et al. Distinct thresholds govern Myc’s biological output in vivo. Cancer Cell. (2008) 14:447–57. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2008.10.018
94. Zeid R, Lawlor MA, Poon E, Reyes JM, Fulciniti M, Lopez MA, et al. Enhancer invasion shapes MYCN-dependent transcriptional amplification in neuroblastoma. Nat Genet. (2018) 50:515–23. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0044-9
95. Lewis LM, Edwards MC, Meyers ZR, Talbot CC Jr., Hao H, Blum D, et al. Replication Study: Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc. Elife. (2018) 7. doi: 10.7554/eLife.30274
96. Llombart V and Mansour MR. Therapeutic targeting of “undruggable” MYC. EBioMedicine. (2022) 75:103756. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103756
97. Soucek L and Evan G. Myc-is this the oncogene from hell? Cancer Cell. (2002) 1:406–8. doi: 10.1016/s1535-6108(02)00077-6
98. Stine ZE, Walton ZE, Altman BJ, Hsieh AL, and Dang CV. MYC. Metabolism, and cancer. Cancer Discov. (2015) 5:1024–39. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-15-0507
99. Whitfield JR and Soucek L. Tumor microenvironment: becoming sick of Myc. Cell Mol Life Sci. (2012) 69:931–4. doi: 10.1007/s00018-011-0860-x
100. Duffy MJ, Tang M, and Crown J. MYC as a target for cancer treatment: from undruggable to druggable? Targ Oncol. (2025) 20:791–801. doi: 10.1007/s11523-025-01169-x
101. Hydbring P, Bahram F, Su Y, Tronnersjo S, Hogstrand K, von der Lehr N, et al. Phosphorylation by Cdk2 is required for Myc to repress Ras-induced senescence in cotransformation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2010) 107:58–63. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0900121106
102. Tabor V, Bocci M, Alikhani N, Kuiper R, and Larsson LG. MYC synergizes with activated BRAFV600E in mouse lung tumor development by suppressing senescence. Cancer Res. (2014) 74:4222–9. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-3234
103. Kim JW, Zeller KI, Wang Y, Jegga AG, Aronow BJ, O’Donnell KA, et al. Evaluation of myc E-box phylogenetic footprints in glycolytic genes by chromatin immunoprecipitation assays. Mol Cell Biol. (2004) 24:5923–36. doi: 10.1128/MCB.24.13.5923-5936.2004
104. Edmunds LR, Sharma L, Kang A, Lu J, Vockley J, Basu S, et al. c-Myc programs fatty acid metabolism and dictates acetyl-CoA abundance and fate. J Biol Chem. (2015) 290:20100. doi: 10.1074/jbc.A114.580662
105. Dominguez-Sola D and Gautier J. MYC and the control of DNA replication. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. (2014) 4. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a014423
106. Peripolli S, Meneguello L, Perrod C, Singh T, Patel H, Rahman ST, et al. Oncogenic c-Myc induces replication stress by increasing cohesins chromatin occupancy in a CTCF-dependent manner. Nat Commun. (2024) 15:1579. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-45955-z
107. Liu Y, Zhu C, Tang L, Chen Q, Guan N, Xu K, et al. MYC dysfunction modulates stemness and tumorigenesis in breast cancer. Int J Biol Sci. (2021) 17:178–87. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.51458
108. Karlsson A, Deb-Basu D, Cherry A, Turner S, Ford J, and Felsher DW. Defective double-strand DNA break repair and chromosomal translocations by MYC overexpression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2003) 100:9974–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1732638100
109. Donati G, Nicoli P, Verrecchia A, Vallelonga V, Croci O, Rodighiero S, et al. Oxidative stress enhances the therapeutic action of a respiratory inhibitor in MYC-driven lymphoma. EMBO Mol Med. (2023) 15:e16910. doi: 10.15252/emmm.202216910
110. Smith AP, Verrecchia A, Faga G, Doni M, Perna D, Martinato F, et al. A positive role for Myc in TGFbeta-induced Snail transcription and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. Oncogene. (2009) 28:422–30. doi: 10.1038/onc.2008.395
111. Hahn S, Jackstadt R, Siemens H, Hunten S, and Hermeking H. SNAIL and miR-34a feed-forward regulation of ZNF281/ZBP99 promotes epithelial-mesenchymal transition. EMBO J. (2013) 32:3079–95. doi: 10.1038/emboj.2013.236
112. Baudino TA, McKay C, Pendeville-Samain H, Nilsson JA, Maclean KH, White EL, et al. c-Myc is essential for vasculogenesis and angiogenesis during development and tumor progression. Genes Dev. (2002) 16:2530–43. doi: 10.1101/gad.1024602
113. Soucek L, Whitfield JR, Sodir NM, Masso-Valles D, Serrano E, Karnezis AN, et al. Inhibition of Myc family proteins eradicates KRas-driven lung cancer in mice. Genes Dev. (2013) 27:504–13. doi: 10.1101/gad.205542.112
114. Watnick RS, Rodriguez RK, Wang S, Blois AL, Rangarajan A, Ince T, et al. Thrombospondin-1 repression is mediated via distinct mechanisms in fibroblasts and epithelial cells. Oncogene. (2015) 34:2949–50. doi: 10.1038/onc.2015.183
115. Krenz B, Lee J, Kannan T, and Eilers M. Immune evasion: An imperative and consequence of MYC deregulation. Mol Oncol. (2024) 18:2338–55. doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.13695
116. Hong Z, Ming S, Luan X, Sun Z, and Zhang W. Beyond the limit: MYC mediates tumor immune escape. Pharm (Basel). (2025) 18:978. doi: 10.3390/ph18070978
117. Li J, Dong T, Wu Z, Zhu D, and Gu H. The effects of MYC on tumor immunity and immunotherapy. Cell Death Discov. (2023) 9:103. doi: 10.1038/s41420-023-01403-3
118. Kortlever RM, Sodir NM, Wilson CH, Burkhart DL, Pellegrinet L, Brown Swigart L, et al. Myc cooperates with ras by programming inflammation and immune suppression. Cell. (2017) 171:1301–15 e14. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.013
119. Sarkar T, Dhar S, and Sa G. Tumor-infiltrating T-regulatory cells adapt to altered metabolism to promote tumor-immune escape. Curr Res Immunol. (2021) 2:132–41. doi: 10.1016/j.crimmu.2021.08.002
120. Shchors K, Shchors E, Rostker F, Lawlor ER, Brown-Swigart L, and Evan GI. The Myc-dependent angiogenic switch in tumors is mediated by interleukin 1beta. Genes Dev. (2006) 20:2527–38. doi: 10.1101/gad.1455706
121. Sheng Y, Ma R, Yu C, Wu Q, Zhang S, Paulsen K, et al. Role of c-Myc haploinsufficiency in the maintenance of HSCs in mice. Blood. (2021) 137:610–23. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019004688
122. Dhanasekaran R, Baylot V, Kim M, Kuruvilla S, Bellovin DI, Adeniji N, et al. MYC and Twist1 cooperate to drive metastasis by eliciting crosstalk between cancer and innate immunity. Elife. (2020) 9. doi: 10.7554/eLife.50731
123. Feng R, Morine Y, Ikemoto T, Imura S, Iwahashi S, Saito Y, et al. Nrf2 activation drive macrophages polarization and cancer cell epithelial-mesenchymal transition during interaction. Cell Commun Signal. (2018) 16:54. doi: 10.1186/s12964-018-0262-x
124. Jiang Y, Han Q, Zhao H, and Zhang J. Promotion of epithelial-mesenchymal transformation by hepatocellular carcinoma-educated macrophages through Wnt2b/beta-catenin/c-Myc signaling and reprogramming glycolysis. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. (2021) 40:13. doi: 10.1186/s13046-020-01808-3
125. Skoulidis F and Heymach JV. Co-occurring genomic alterations in non-small-cell lung cancer biology and therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. (2019) 19:495–509. doi: 10.1038/s41568-019-0179-8
126. Sodir NM, Kortlever RM, Barthet VJA, Campos T, Pellegrinet L, Kupczak S, et al. MYC instructs and maintains pancreatic adenocarcinoma phenotype. Cancer Discov. (2020) 10:588–607. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-0435
127. Soucek L, Lawlor ER, Soto D, Shchors K, Swigart LB, and Evan GI. Mast cells are required for angiogenesis and macroscopic expansion of Myc-induced pancreatic islet tumors. Nat Med. (2007) 13:1211–8. doi: 10.1038/nm1649
128. Bernards R, Dessain SK, and Weinberg RA. N-myc amplification causes down-modulation of MHC class I antigen expression in neuroblastoma. Cell. (1986) 47:667–74. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(86)90509-x
129. Felsher DW, Rhim SH, and Braun J. A murine model for B-cell lymphomagenesis in immunocompromised hosts: natural killer cells are an important component of host resistance to premalignant B-cell lines. Cancer Res. (1990) 50:7050–6.
130. God JM, Cameron C, Figueroa J, Amria S, Hossain A, Kempkes B, et al. Elevation of c-MYC disrupts HLA class II-mediated immune recognition of human B cell tumors. J Immunol. (2015) 194:1434–45. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1402382
131. Versteeg R, Noordermeer IA, Kruse-Wolters M, Ruiter DJ, and Schrier PI. c-myc down-regulates class I HLA expression in human melanomas. EMBO J. (1988) 7:1023–9. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1988.tb02909.x
132. Layer JP, Kronmuller MT, Quast T, van den Boorn-Konijnenberg D, Effern M, Hinze D, et al. Amplification of N-Myc is associated with a T-cell-poor microenvironment in metastatic neuroblastoma restraining interferon pathway activity and chemokine expression. Oncoimmunology. (2017) 6:e1320626. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2017.1320626
133. Dhanasekaran R, Hansen AS, Park J, Lemaitre L, Lai I, Adeniji N, et al. MYC overexpression drives immune evasion in hepatocellular carcinoma that is reversible through restoration of proinflammatory macrophages. Cancer Res. (2023) 83:626–40. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-22-0232
134. Zimmerli D, Brambillasca CS, Talens F, Bhin J, Linstra R, Romanens L, et al. MYC promotes immune-suppression in triple-negative breast cancer via inhibition of interferon signaling. Nat Commun. (2022) 13:6579. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-34000-6
135. Muthalagu N, Monteverde T, Raffo-Iraolagoitia X, Wiesheu R, Whyte D, Hedley A, et al. Repression of the type I interferon pathway underlies MYC- and KRAS-dependent evasion of NK and B cells in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Discov. (2020) 10:872–87. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-0620
136. Casacuberta-Serra S and Soucek L. Myc and Ras, the Bonnie and Clyde of immune evasion. Transl Cancer Res. (2018) 7:S457–S9. doi: 10.21037/tcr.2018.03.09
137. Aguade-Gorgorio G and Sole R. Genetic instability as a driver for immune surveillance. J Immunother Cancer. (2019) 7:345. doi: 10.1186/s40425-019-0795-6
138. Casey SC, Tong L, Li Y, Do R, Walz S, Fitzgerald KN, et al. MYC regulates the antitumor immune response through CD47 and PD-L1. Science. (2016) 352:227–31. doi: 10.1126/science.aac9935
139. Kim EY, Kim A, Kim SK, and Chang YS. MYC expression correlates with PD-L1 expression in non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. (2017) 110:63–7. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.06.006
140. Sun S, Zhou W, Li X, Peng F, Yan M, Zhan Y, et al. Nuclear Aurora kinase A triggers programmed death-ligand 1-mediated immune suppression by activating MYC transcription in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Commun (Lond). (2021) 41:851–66. doi: 10.1002/cac2.12190
141. Zou W, Wolchok JD, and Chen L. PD-L1 (B7-H1) and PD-1 pathway blockade for cancer therapy: Mechanisms, response biomarkers, and combinations. Sci Transl Med. (2016) 8:328rv4. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aad7118
142. Lee CC, Ho KH, Huang TW, Shih CM, Hsu SY, Liu AJ, et al. A regulatory loop among CD276, miR-29c-3p, and Myc exists in cancer cells against natural killer cell cytotoxicity. Life Sci. (2021) 277:119438. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2021.119438
143. Suh WK, Gajewska BU, Okada H, Gronski MA, Bertram EM, Dawicki W, et al. The B7 family member B7-H3 preferentially down-regulates T helper type 1-mediated immune responses. Nat Immunol. (2003) 4:899–906. doi: 10.1038/ni967
144. Menssen A and Hermeking H. Characterization of the c-MYC-regulated transcriptome by SAGE: identification and analysis of c-MYC target genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2002) 99:6274–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.082005599
145. O'Connell BC, Cheung AF, Simkevich CP, Tam W, Ren X, Mateyak MK, et al. A large scale genetic analysis of c-Myc-regulated gene expression patterns. J Biol Chem. (2003) 278:12563–73. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M210462200
146. Osthus RC, Shim H, Kim S, Li Q, Reddy R, Mukherjee M, et al. Deregulation of glucose transporter 1 and glycolytic gene expression by c-Myc. J Biol Chem. (2000) 275:21797–800. doi: 10.1074/jbc.C000023200
147. Shim H, Dolde C, Lewis BC, Wu CS, Dang G, Jungmann RA, et al. c-Myc transactivation of LDH-A: implications for tumor metabolism and growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (1997) 94:6658–63. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.13.6658
148. Dietl K, Renner K, Dettmer K, Timischl B, Eberhart K, Dorn C, et al. Lactic acid and acidification inhibit TNF secretion and glycolysis of human monocytes. J Immunol. (2010) 184:1200–9. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0902584
149. Fischer K, Hoffmann P, Voelkl S, Meidenbauer N, Ammer J, Edinger M, et al. Inhibitory effect of tumor cell-derived lactic acid on human T cells. Blood. (2007) 109:3812–9. doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-07-035972
150. Kumagai S, Koyama S, Itahashi K, Tanegashima T, Lin YT, Togashi Y, et al. Lactic acid promotes PD-1 expression in regulatory T cells in highly glycolytic tumor microenvironments. Cancer Cell. (2022) 40:201–18 e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2022.01.001
151. Sangsuwan R, Thuamsang B, Pacifici N, Allen R, Han H, Miakicheva S, et al. Lactate exposure promotes immunosuppressive phenotypes in innate immune cells. Cell Mol Bioeng. (2020) 13:541–57. doi: 10.1007/s12195-020-00652-x
152. Ye H, Zhou Q, Zheng S, Li G, Lin Q, Wei L, et al. Tumor-associated macrophages promote progression and the Warburg effect via CCL18/NF-kB/VCAM-1 pathway in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cell Death Dis. (2018) 9:453. doi: 10.1038/s41419-018-0486-0
153. Bott AJ, Peng IC, Fan Y, Faubert B, Zhao L, Li J, et al. Oncogenic myc induces expression of glutamine synthetase through promoter demethylation. Cell Metab. (2015) 22:1068–77. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.09.025
154. Klysz D, Tai X, Robert PA, Craveiro M, Cretenet G, Oburoglu L, et al. Glutamine-dependent alpha-ketoglutarate production regulates the balance between T helper 1 cell and regulatory T cell generation. Sci Signal. (2015) 8:ra97. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.aab2610
155. Nakaya M, Xiao Y, Zhou X, Chang JH, Chang M, Cheng X, et al. Inflammatory T cell responses rely on amino acid transporter ASCT2 facilitation of glutamine uptake and mTORC1 kinase activation. Immunity. (2014) 40:692–705. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2014.04.007
156. Gao P, Tchernyshyov I, Chang TC, Lee YS, Kita K, Ochi T, et al. c-Myc suppression of miR-23a/b enhances mitochondrial glutaminase expression and glutamine metabolism. Nature. (2009) 458:762–5. doi: 10.1038/nature07823
157. Wang B, Pei J, Xu S, Liu J, and Yu J. A glutamine tug-of-war between cancer and immune cells: recent advances in unraveling the ongoing battle. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. (2024) 43:74. doi: 10.1186/s13046-024-02994-0
158. Hall Z, Wilson CH, Burkhart DL, Ashmore T, Evan GI, and Griffin JL. Myc linked to dysregulation of cholesterol transport and storage in nonsmall cell lung cancer. J Lipid Res. (2020) 61:1390–9. doi: 10.1194/jlr.RA120000899
159. Entrialgo-Cadierno R, Cueto-Urena C, Welch C, Feliu I, Macaya I, Vera L, et al. Correction: The phospholipid transporter PITPNC1 links KRAS to MYC to prevent autophagy in lung and pancreatic cancer. Mol Cancer. (2023) 22:97. doi: 10.1186/s12943-023-01795-x
160. Wang YN, Ruan DY, Wang ZX, Yu K, Rong DL, Liu ZX, et al. Targeting the cholesterol-RORalpha/gamma axis inhibits colorectal cancer progression through degrading c-myc. Oncogene. (2022) 41:5266–78. doi: 10.1038/s41388-022-02515-3
161. Gouw AM, Margulis K, Liu NS, Raman SJ, Mancuso A, Toal GG, et al. The MYC oncogene cooperates with sterol-regulated element-binding protein to regulate lipogenesis essential for neoplastic growth. Cell Metab. (2019) 30:556–72 e5. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.07.012
162. Giuriato S, Ryeom S, Fan AC, Bachireddy P, Lynch RC, Rioth MJ, et al. Sustained regression of tumors upon MYC inactivation requires p53 or thrombospondin-1 to reverse the angiogenic switch. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2006) 103:16266–71. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0608017103
163. Zhou L, Picard D, Ra YS, Li M, Northcott PA, Hu Y, et al. Silencing of thrombospondin-1 is critical for myc-induced metastatic phenotypes in medulloblastoma. Cancer Res. (2010) 70:8199–210. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-4562
164. Mundim FG, Pasini FS, Brentani MM, Soares FA, Nonogaki S, and Waitzberg AF. MYC is expressed in the stromal and epithelial cells of primary breast carcinoma and paired nodal metastases. Mol Clin Oncol. (2015) 3:506–14. doi: 10.3892/mco.2015.526
165. Pavlides S, Whitaker-Menezes D, Castello-Cros R, Flomenberg N, Witkiewicz AK, Frank PG, et al. The reverse Warburg effect: aerobic glycolysis in cancer associated fibroblasts and the tumor stroma. Cell Cycle. (2009) 8:3984–4001. doi: 10.4161/cc.8.23.10238
166. Kang J, Gallucci S, Pan J, Oakhill JS, and Sanij E. The role of STK11/LKB1 in cancer biology: implications for ovarian tumorigenesis and progression. Front Cell Dev Biol. (2024) 12:1449543. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2024.1449543
167. Knetki-Wroblewska M, Wojas-Krawczyk K, Krawczyk P, and Krzakowski M. Emerging insights into STK11, KEAP1 and KRAS mutations: implications for immunotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res. (2024) 13:3718–30. doi: 10.21037/tlcr-24-552
168. Kummar S, Fellous M, and Levine AJ. The roles of mutant p53 in reprogramming and inflammation in breast cancers. Cell Death Differ. (2025) 32:1949–53. doi: 10.1038/s41418-025-01549-w
169. Petrelli F, Dottorini L, Zaniboni A, Celotti A, and Iaculli A. Immune checkpoint inhibitors for dMMR/MSI localized rectal cancer: A systematic review of treatment strategies. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. (2025) 215:104921. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2025.104921
170. Piumatti E, Vitiello PP, Amodio V, Bardelli A, and Germano G. Mismatch repair as a dynamic and clinically actionable vulnerability in cancer. Cancer Res. (2025) 85:4299–314. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-25-2255
171. Tian L, Li H, Cui H, Tang C, Zhao P, Wang X, et al. Oncogenic KRAS mutations drive immune suppression through immune-related regulatory network and metabolic reprogramming. Cell Death Dis. (2025) 16:785. doi: 10.1038/s41419-025-08101-1
172. Wang W, Liu J, Feng Z, and Hu W. From genome guardian to immune modulator: the expanding roles of tumor suppressor p53. Mol Cell Biol. (2025) 46:78–95. doi: 10.1080/10985549.2025.2571187
173. Wu HH, Leng S, Eisenstat DD, Sergi C, and Leng R. Targeting p53 for immune modulation: Exploring its functions in tumor immunity and inflammation. Cancer Lett. (2025) 617:217614. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2025.217614
174. Anagnostou V, Smith KN, Forde PM, Niknafs N, Bhattacharya R, White J, et al. Evolution of neoantigen landscape during immune checkpoint blockade in non–small cell lung cancer. Cancer Discov. (2017) 7:264–76. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-0828
175. Bhatia A and Kumar Y. Cellular and molecular mechanisms in cancer immune escape: a comprehensive review. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. (2014) 10:41–62. doi: 10.1586/1744666X.2014.865519
176. Fujiwara Y, Mittra A, Naqash AR, and Takebe N. A review of mechanisms of resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors and potential strategies for therapy. Cancer Drug Res. (2020) 18:252–75. doi: 10.20517/cdr.2020.11
177. Sokol L, Koelzer VH, Rau TT, Karamitopoulou E, Zlobec I, and Lugli A. Loss of tapasin correlates with diminished CD8+ T-cell immunity and prognosis in colorectal cancer. J Trans Med. (2015) 13:279. doi: 10.1186/s12967-015-0647-1
178. Horvath L, Thienpont B, Zhao L, Wolf D, and Pircher A. Overcoming immunotherapy resistance in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) - novel approaches and future outlook. Mol Cancer. (2020) 19:141. doi: 10.1186/s12943-020-01260-z
179. Casey SC, Baylot V, and Felsher DW. The MYC oncogene is a global regulator of the immune response. Blood. (2018) 131:2007–15. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-11-742577
180. Gao J, Shi LZ, Zhao H, Chen J, Xiong L, He Q, et al. Loss of IFN-γ Pathway genes in tumor cells as a mechanism of resistance to anti-CTLA-4 therapy. Cell. (2016) 167:397–404.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.08.069
181. Garcia-Diaz A, Shin DS, Moreno BH, Saco J, Escuin-Ordinas H, Rodriguez GA, et al. Interferon receptor signaling pathways regulating PD-L1 and PD-L2 expression. Cell Rep. (2017) 19:1189–201. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.04.031
182. Jerby-Arnon L, Shah P, Cuoco MS, Rodman C, Su M-J, Melms JC, et al. A cancer cell program promotes T cell exclusion and resistance to checkpoint blockade. Cell. (2018) 175:984–97.e24. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.09.006
183. Alburquerque-Bejar JJ, Navajas-Chocarro P, Saigi M, Ferrero-Andres A, Morillas JM, Vilarrubi A, et al. MYC activation impairs cell-intrinsic IFNgamma signaling and confers resistance to anti-PD1/PD-L1 therapy in lung cancer. Cell Rep Med. (2023) 4:101006. doi: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2023.101006
184. Markovits E, Harush O, Baruch EN, Shulman ED, Debby A, Itzhaki O, et al. MYC induces immunotherapy and IFNγ Resistance through downregulation of JAK2. Cancer Immunol Res. (2023) 11:909–24. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-22-0184
185. Dhillon AS, Hagan S, Rath O, and Kolch W. MAP kinase signalling pathways in cancer. Oncogene. (2007) 26:3279–90. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1210421
186. Pereira C, Gimenez-Xavier P, Pros E, Pajares MJ, Moro M, Gomez A, et al. Genomic profiling of patient-derived xenografts for lung cancer identifies B2M inactivation impairing immunorecognition. Clin Cancer Res. (2017) 23:3203–13. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1946
187. Muto S, Enta A, Maruya Y, Inomata S, Yamaguchi H, Mine H, et al. Wnt/β-catenin signaling and resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors: from non-small-cell lung cancer to other cancers. Biomedicines. (2023) 11:190. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11010190
188. Chung SW, Xie Y, and Suk JS. Overcoming physical stromal barriers to cancer immunotherapy. Drug Deliv Trans Res. (2021) 11:2430–47. doi: 10.1007/s13346-021-01036-y
189. Xiao Z, Todd L, Huang L, Noguera-Ortega E, Lu Z, Huang L, et al. Desmoplastic stroma restricts T cell extravasation and mediates immune exclusion and immunosuppression in solid tumors. Nat Commun. (2023) 14:5110. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-40850-5
190. Zhao J, Xiao Z, Li T, Chen H, Yuan Y, Wang YA, et al. Stromal modulation reverses primary resistance to immune checkpoint blockade in pancreatic cancer. ACS Nano. (2018) 12:9881–93. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.8b02481
191. Cleveland AH and Fan Y. Reprogramming endothelial cells to empower cancer immunotherapy. Trends Mol Med. (2024) 30:126–35. doi: 10.1016/j.molmed.2023.11.002
192. Huang Y, Goel S, Duda DG, Fukumura D, and Jain RK. Vascular normalization as an emerging strategy to enhance cancer immunotherapy. Cancer Res. (2013) 73:2943–8. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-4354
193. Ribatti D. Aberrant tumor vasculature. Facts Pitfalls Front Pharmacol. (2024) 15:1384721. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1384721
194. Zhang M, Zhang YY, Chen Y, Wang J, Wang Q, and Lu H. TGF-β Signaling and resistance to cancer therapy. Front Cell Dev Biol. (2021) 9:786728. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.786728
195. Gao F-Y, Li X-T, Xu K, Wang R-T, and Guan X-X. c-MYC mediates the crosstalk between breast cancer cells and tumor microenvironment. Cell Comm Signaling. (2023) 21:28. doi: 10.1186/s12964-023-01043-1
196. Wu F, Yang J, Liu J, Wang Y, Mu J, Zeng Q, et al. Signaling pathways in cancer-associated fibroblasts and targeted therapy for cancer. Signal Transduct Targ Ther. (2021) 6:218. doi: 10.1038/s41392-021-00641-0
197. Gwangwa MV, Joubert AM, and Visagie MH. Crosstalk between the Warburg effect, redox regulation and autophagy induction in tumourigenesis. Cell Mol Biol Lett. (2018) 23:20. doi: 10.1186/s11658-018-0088-y
198. Dang CV, Le A, and Gao P. MYC-induced cancer cell energy metabolism and therapeutic opportunities. Clin Cancer Res. (2009) 15:6479–83. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0889
199. Liu X, Wang X, Zhang J, Tian T, Ning Y, Chen Y, et al. Myc-mediated inhibition of HIF1a degradation promotes M2 macrophage polarization and impairs CD8 T cell function through lactic acid secretion in ovarian cancer. Int Immunopharmacol. (2024) 141:112876. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2024.112876
200. Abou Khouzam R, Zaarour RF, Brodaczewska K, Azakir B, Venkatesh GH, Thiery J, et al. The effect of hypoxia and hypoxia-associated pathways in the regulation of antitumor response: friends or foes? Front Immunol. (2022) 13:828875. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.828875
201. Baek AE, Yu Y-RA, He S, Wardell SE, Chang C-Y, Kwon S, et al. The cholesterol metabolite 27 hydroxycholesterol facilitates breast cancer metastasis through its actions on immune cells. Nat Commun. (2017) 8:864. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00910-z
202. Leone RD and Emens LA. Targeting adenosine for cancer immunotherapy. J ImmunoTher Cancer. (2018) 6:57. doi: 10.1186/s40425-018-0360-8
203. Hall Z, Wilson CH, Burkhart DL, Ashmore T, Evan GI, and Griffin JL. Myc linked to dysregulation of cholesterol transport and storage in nonsmall cell lung cancer. J Lipid Res. (2020) 61:1390–9. doi: 10.1194/jlr.RA120000899
204. Venkatraman S, Balasubramanian B, Thuwajit C, Meller J, Tohtong R, and Chutipongtanate S. Targeting MYC at the intersection between cancer metabolism and oncoimmunology. Front Immunol. (2024) 15:1324045. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1324045
205. Li S, Sheng J, Zhang D, and Qin H. Targeting tumor-associated macrophages to reverse antitumor drug resistance. Aging. (2024) 16:10165–96. doi: 10.18632/aging.205858
206. Pello OM, De Pizzol M, Mirolo M, Soucek L, Zammataro L, Amabile A, et al. Role of c-MYC in alternative activation of human macrophages and tumor-associated macrophage biology. Blood. (2012) 119:411–21. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-02-339911
207. Xu J, Ding L, Mei J, Hu Y, Kong X, Dai S, et al. Dual roles and therapeutic targeting of tumor-associated macrophages in tumor microenvironments. Signal Transduct Targ Ther. (2025) 10:268. doi: 10.1038/s41392-025-02325-5
208. Komai T, Inoue M, Okamura T, Morita K, Iwasaki Y, Sumitomo S, et al. Transforming growth factor-β and interleukin-10 synergistically regulate humoral immunity via modulating metabolic signals. Front Immunol. (2018) 9:1364. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01364
209. Mirlekar B. Tumor promoting roles of IL-10, TGF-β, IL-4, and IL-35: Its implications in cancer immunotherapy. SAGE Open Med. (2022) 10:20503121211069012. doi: 10.1177/20503121211069012
210. Saravia J, Zeng H, Dhungana Y, Blanco DB, Nguyen T-LM, Chapman NM, et al. Homeostasis and transitional activation of regulatory T cells require c-Myc. Sci Adv. (2020) 6:aaw6443. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaw6443
211. Pyzer AR, Stroopinsky D, Rajabi H, Washington A, Tagde A, Coll M, et al. MUC1-mediated induction of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. (2017) 129:1791–801. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-07-730614
212. Cheng J-N, Yuan Y-X, Zhu B, and Jia Q. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells: A multifaceted accomplice in tumor progression. Front Cell Dev Biol. (2021) 9:740827. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.740827
213. Chen X, Zhang W, Yang W, Zhou M, and Liu F. Acquired resistance for immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer immunotherapy: challenges and prospects. Aging. (2022) 14:1048–64. doi: 10.18632/aging.203833
214. Pang L, Zhou F, Liu Y, Ali H, Khan F, Heimberger AB, et al. Epigenetic regulation of tumor immunity. J Clin Invest. (2024) 134:e178540. doi: 10.1172/JCI178540
215. Juin P, Hunt A, Littlewood T, Griffiths B, Swigart LB, Korsmeyer S, et al. c-myc functionally cooperates with bax to induce apoptosis. Mol Cell Biol. (2002) 22:6158–69. doi: 10.1128/MCB.22.17.6158-6169.2002
216. Gu Y, Zhang Z, and Ten Dijke P. Harnessing epithelial-mesenchymal plasticity to boost cancer immunotherapy. Cell Mol Immunol. (2023) 20:318–40. doi: 10.1038/s41423-023-00980-8
217. Yin S, Cheryan VT, Xu L, Rishi AK, and Reddy KB. Myc mediates cancer stem-like cells and EMT changes in triple negative breast cancers cells. PloS One. (2017) 12:e0183578. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183578
218. Cao K, Riley JS, Heilig R, Montes-Gómez AE, Vringer E, Berthenet K, et al. Mitochondrial dynamics regulate genome stability via control of caspase-dependent DNA damage. Dev Cell. (2022) 57:1211–25.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2022.03.019
219. Graves JA, Wang Y, Sims-Lucas S, Cherok E, Rothermund K, Branca MF, et al. Mitochondrial structure, function and dynamics are temporally controlled by c-myc. PloS One. (2012) 7:e37699. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037699
220. Wang B, Han Y, Zhang Y, Zhao Q, Wang H, Wei J, et al. Overcoming acquired resistance to cancer immune checkpoint therapy: potential strategies based on molecular mechanisms. Cell Biosci. (2023) 13:120. doi: 10.1186/s13578-023-01073-9
221. Memon D, Schoenfeld AJ, Ye D, Fromm G, Rizvi H, Zhang X, et al. Clinical and molecular features of acquired resistance to immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Cell. (2024) 42:209–24.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.12.013
222. Li X, Tang L, Chen Q, Cheng X, Liu Y, Wang C, et al. Inhibition of MYC suppresses programmed cell death ligand-1 expression and enhances immunotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer. Chin Med J (Engl). (2022) 135:2436–45. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002329
223. Whitfield JR and Soucek L. MYC in cancer: from undruggable target to clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov. (2025) 24:445–57. doi: 10.1038/s41573-025-01143-2
224. Duan Y, Liu Z, Wang Q, Zhang J, Liu J, Zhang Z, et al. Targeting MYC: Multidimensional regulation and therapeutic strategies in oncology. Genes Dis. (2025) 12:101435. doi: 10.1016/j.gendis.2024.101435
225. Yu J, Liu D, Yuan Y, Sun C, and Su Z. Rethinking MYC inhibition: a multi-dimensional approach to overcome cancer's master regulator. Front Cell Dev Biol. (2025) 13:1601975. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2025.1601975
226. Xu H, Di Antonio M, McKinney S, Mathew V, Ho B, O'Neil NJ, et al. CX-5461 is a DNA G-quadruplex stabilizer with selective lethality in BRCA1/2 deficient tumours. Nat Commun. (2017) 8:14432. doi: 10.1038/ncomms14432
227. Drygin D, Siddiqui-Jain A, O'Brien S, Schwaebe M, Lin A, Bliesath J, et al. Anticancer activity of CX-3543: a direct inhibitor of rRNA biogenesis. Cancer Res. (2009) 69:7653–61. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-1304
228. Chung SY, Chang YC, Hsu DS, Hung YC, Lu ML, Hung YP, et al. A G-quadruplex stabilizer, CX-5461 combined with two immune checkpoint inhibitors enhances in vivo therapeutic efficacy by increasing PD-L1 expression in colorectal cancer. Neoplasia. (2023) 35:100856. doi: 10.1016/j.neo.2022.100856
229. Zhou Y, Xu D, Zhang Y, and Zhou H. G-quadruplexes in tumor immune regulation: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic prospects in gastrointestinal cancers. Biomedicines. (2025) 13(5):1057. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines13051057
230. Li HX, He YM, Fei J, Guo M, Zeng C, Yan PJ, et al. The G-quadruplex ligand CX-5461: an innovative candidate for disease treatment. J Transl Med. (2025) 23:457. doi: 10.1186/s12967-025-06473-8
231. Ohanian M, Arellano ML, Levy MY, O'Dwyer K, Babiker H, Mahadevan D, et al. A Phase 1a/b dose escalation study of the MYC repressor Apto-253 in patients with relapsed or refractory AML or high-risk MDS. Blood. (2021) 138:3411–3. doi: 10.1182/blood-2021-150049
232. Bahls B, Aljnadi IM, Emidio R, Mendes E, and Paulo A. G-quadruplexes in c-MYC promoter as targets for cancer therapy. Biomedicines. (2023) 11:969. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11030969
233. Constantin TA, Varela-Carver A, Greenland KK, de Almeida GS, Olden E, Penfold L, et al. The CDK7 inhibitor CT7001 (Samuraciclib) targets proliferation pathways to inhibit advanced prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. (2023) 128:2326–37. doi: 10.1038/s41416-023-02252-8
234. Hu S, Marineau JJ, Rajagopal N, Hamman KB, Choi YJ, Schmidt DR, et al. Discovery and characterization of SY-1365, a selective, covalent inhibitor of CDK7. Cancer Res. (2019) 79:3479–91. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-19-0119
235. Marineau JJ, Hamman KB, Hu S, Alnemy S, Mihalich J, Kabro A, et al. Discovery of SY-5609: A selective, noncovalent inhibitor of CDK7. J Med Chem. (2022) 65:1458–80. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.1c01171
236. Garralda E, Schram AM, Bedard PL, Schwartz GK, Yuen E, McNeely SC, et al. A phase I dose-escalation study of LY3405105, a covalent inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinase 7, administered to patients with advanced solid tumors. Oncologist. (2024) 29:e131–e40. doi: 10.1093/oncolo/oyad215
237. Freeman DB, Hopkins TD, Mikochik PJ, Vacca JP, Gao H, Naylor-Olsen A, et al. Discovery of KB-0742, a potent, selective, orally bioavailable small molecule inhibitor of CDK9 for MYC-dependent cancers. J Med Chem. (2023) 66:15629–47. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.3c01233
238. Frame S, Saladino C, MacKay C, Atrash B, Sheldrake P, McDonald E, et al. Fadraciclib (CYC065), a novel CDK inhibitor, targets key pro-survival and oncogenic pathways in cancer. PloS One. (2020) 15:e0234103. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234103
239. Paruch K, Dwyer MP, Alvarez C, Brown C, Chan TY, Doll RJ, et al. Discovery of dinaciclib (SCH 727965): A potent and selective inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases. ACS Med Chem Lett. (2010) 1:204–8. doi: 10.1021/ml100051d
240. Frigault MM, Mithal A, Wong H, Stelte-Ludwig B, Mandava V, Huang X, et al. Enitociclib, a selective CDK9 inhibitor, induces complete regression of MYC+ Lymphoma by downregulation of RNA polymerase II mediated transcription. Cancer Res Commun. (2023) 3:2268–79. doi: 10.1158/2767-9764.CRC-23-0219
241. Chipumuro E, Marco E, Christensen CL, Kwiatkowski N, Zhang T, Hatheway CM, et al. CDK7 inhibition suppresses super-enhancer-linked oncogenic transcription in MYCN-driven cancer. Cell. (2014) 159:1126–39. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.10.024
242. Kwiatkowski N, Zhang T, Rahl PB, Abraham BJ, Reddy J, Ficarro SB, et al. Targeting transcription regulation in cancer with a covalent CDK7 inhibitor. Nature. (2014) 511:616–20. doi: 10.1038/nature13393
243. Lucking U, Kosemund D, Bohnke N, Lienau P, Siemeister G, Denner K, et al. Changing for the better: discovery of the highly potent and selective CDK9 inhibitor VIP152 suitable for once weekly intravenous dosing for the treatment of cancer. J Med Chem. (2021) 64:11651–74. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.1c01000
244. Morillo D, Vega G, and Moreno V. CDK9 INHIBITORS: a promising combination partner in the treatment of hematological Malignancies. Oncotarget. (2023) 14:749–52. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.28473
245. Wang J, Zhang R, Lin Z, Zhang S, Chen Y, Tang J, et al. CDK7 inhibitor THZ1 enhances antiPD-1 therapy efficacy via the p38alpha/MYC/PD-L1 signaling in non-small cell lung cancer. J Hematol Oncol. (2020) 13:99. doi: 10.1186/s13045-020-00926-x
246. Zhang H, Christensen CL, Dries R, Oser MG, Deng J, Diskin B, et al. CDK7 inhibition potentiates genome instability triggering anti-tumor immunity in small cell lung cancer. Cancer Cell. (2020) 37:37–54 e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2019.11.003
247. Shao YY, Hsieh MS, Lee YH, Hsu HW, Wo RR, Wang HY, et al. Cyclin dependent kinase 9 inhibition reduced programmed death-ligand 1 expression and improved treatment efficacy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Heliyon. (2024) 10:e34289. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34289
248. Zhang H, Pandey S, Travers M, Sun H, Morton G, Madzo J, et al. Targeting CDK9 reactivates epigenetically silenced genes in cancer. Cell. (2018) 175:1244–58 e26. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.09.051
249. Gorgun G, Calabrese E, Hideshima T, Ecsedy J, Perrone G, Mani M, et al. A novel Aurora-A kinase inhibitor MLN8237 induces cytotoxicity and cell-cycle arrest in multiple myeloma. Blood. (2010) 115:5202–13. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-12-259523
250. Shimomura T, Hasako S, Nakatsuru Y, Mita T, Ichikawa K, Kodera T, et al. MK-5108, a highly selective Aurora-A kinase inhibitor, shows antitumor activity alone and in combination with docetaxel. Mol Cancer Ther. (2010) 9:157–66. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0609
251. Sootome H, Miura A, Masuko N, Suzuki T, Uto Y, and Hirai H. Aurora A inhibitor TAS-119 enhances antitumor efficacy of taxanes in vitro and in vivo: preclinical studies as guidance for clinical development and trial design. Mol Cancer Ther. (2020) 19:1981–91. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-20-0036
252. Wang X, Li B, Ciotkowska A, Rutz B, Erlander MG, Ridinger M, et al. Onvansertib, a polo-like kinase 1 inhibitor, inhibits prostate stromal cell growth and prostate smooth muscle contraction, which is additive to inhibition by alpha(1)-blockers. Eur J Pharmacol. (2020) 873:172985. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2020.172985
253. Schoffski P, Awada A, Dumez H, Gil T, Bartholomeus S, Wolter P, et al. dose-escalation study of the novel Polo-like kinase inhibitor volasertib (BI 6727) in patients with advanced solid tumours. Eur J Cancer. (2012) 48:179–86. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.001
254. Sylvie Moureau CM, Saladino C, Pohler E, Kroboth K, Hollick J, Zheleva D, et al. The novel PLK1 inhibitor, CYC140: Identification of pharmacodynamic markers, sensitive target indications and potential combinations. Cancer Res. (2017) 77:4178. doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-4178
255. Gustafson WC, Meyerowitz JG, Nekritz EA, Chen J, Benes C, Charron E, et al. Drugging MYCN through an allosteric transition in Aurora kinase A. Cancer Cell. (2014) 26:414–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2014.07.015
256. Lu L, Han H, Tian Y, Li W, Zhang J, Feng M, et al. Aurora kinase A mediates c-Myc's oncogenic effects in hepatocellular carcinoma. Mol Carcinog. (2015) 54:1467–79. doi: 10.1002/mc.22223
257. Xiao D, Yue M, Su H, Ren P, Jiang J, Li F, et al. Polo-like kinase-1 regulates myc stabilization and activates a feedforward circuit promoting tumor cell survival. Mol Cell. (2016) 64:493–506. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.09.016
258. Yin T, Zhao ZB, Guo J, Wang T, Yang JB, Wang C, et al. Aurora A inhibition eliminates myeloid cell-mediated immunosuppression and enhances the efficacy of anti-PD-L1 therapy in breast cancer. Cancer Res. (2019) 79:3431–44. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-3397
259. Ghosh S, O'Hara MP, Sinha P, Mazumdar T, Yapindi L, Sastry JK, et al. Targeted inhibition of Aurora kinase A promotes immune checkpoint inhibition efficacy in human papillomavirus-driven cancers. J Immunother Cancer. (2025) 13. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2024-009316
260. Wang W, Zhao R, Wang Y, Pan L, Luan F, and Fu G. PLK1 in cancer therapy: a comprehensive review of immunomodulatory mechanisms and therapeutic opportunities. Front Immunol. (2025) 16:1602752. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1602752
261. Reda M, Ngamcherdtrakul W, Nelson MA, Siriwon N, Wang R, Zaidan HY, et al. Development of a nanoparticle-based immunotherapy targeting PD-L1 and PLK1 for lung cancer treatment. Nat Commun. (2022) 13:4261. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31926-9
262. Zhang Z, Cheng L, Li J, Qiao Q, Karki A, Allison DB, et al. Targeting plk1 sensitizes pancreatic cancer to immune checkpoint therapy. Cancer Res. (2022) 82:3532–48. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-22-0018
263. Vit G, Duro J, Rajendraprasad G, Hertz EPT, Holland LKK, Weisser MB, et al. Chemogenetic profiling reveals PP2A-independent cytotoxicity of proposed PP2A activators iHAP1 and DT-061. EMBO J. (2022) 41:e110611. doi: 10.15252/embj.2022110611
264. Fu QH, Zhang Q, Zhang JY, Sun X, Lou Y, Li GG, et al. LB-100 sensitizes hepatocellular carcinoma cells to the effects of sorafenib during hypoxia by activation of Smad3 phosphorylation. Tumour Biol. (2016) 37:7277–86. doi: 10.1007/s13277-015-4560-2
265. Farrington CC, Yuan E, Mazhar S, Izadmehr S, Hurst L, Allen-Petersen BL, et al. Protein phosphatase 2A activation as a therapeutic strategy for managing MYC-driven cancers. J Biol Chem. (2020) 295:757–70. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9258(17)49933-9
266. Sangodkar J, Perl A, Tohme R, Kiselar J, Kastrinsky DB, Zaware N, et al. Activation of tumor suppressor protein PP2A inhibits KRAS-driven tumor growth. J Clin Invest. (2017) 127:2081–90. doi: 10.1172/JCI89548
267. Clark MC, Lu RO, Ho WS, Dias MH, Bernards R, and Forman SJ. A combination of protein phosphatase 2A inhibition and checkpoint immunotherapy: a perfect storm. Mol Oncol. (2024) 18:2333–7. doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.13687
268. Dias MH, Liudkovska V, Montenegro Navarro J, Giebel L, Champagne J, Papagianni C, et al. The phosphatase inhibitor LB-100 creates neoantigens in colon cancer cells through perturbation of mRNA splicing. EMBO Rep. (2024) 25:2220–38. doi: 10.1038/s44319-024-00128-3
269. Maggio D, Ho WS, Breese R, Walbridge S, Wang H, Cui J, et al. Inhibition of protein phosphatase-2A with LB-100 enhances antitumor immunity against glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. (2020) 148:231–44. doi: 10.1007/s11060-020-03517-5
270. Fowler T, Ghatak P, Price DH, Conaway R, Conaway J, Chiang CM, et al. Regulation of MYC expression and differential JQ1 sensitivity in cancer cells. PloS One. (2014) 9:e87003. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087003
271. Coude MM, Braun T, Berrou J, Dupont M, Bertrand S, Masse A, et al. BET inhibitor OTX015 targets BRD2 and BRD4 and decreases c-MYC in acute leukemia cells. Oncotarget. (2015) 6:17698–712. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.4131
272. Albrecht BK, Gehling VS, Hewitt MC, Vaswani RG, Cote A, Leblanc Y, et al. Identification of a benzoisoxazoloazepine inhibitor (CPI-0610) of the bromodomain and extra-terminal (BET) family as a candidate for human clinical trials. J Med Chem. (2016) 59:1330–9. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.5b01882
273. Piha-Paul SA, Hann CL, French CA, Cousin S, Brana I, Cassier PA, et al. Phase 1 study of molibresib (GSK525762), a bromodomain and extra-terminal domain protein inhibitor, in NUT carcinoma and other solid tumors. JNCI Cancer Spectr. (2020) 4:pkz093. doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkz093
274. Mirguet O, Gosmini R, Toum J, Clement CA, Barnathan M, Brusq JM, et al. Discovery of epigenetic regulator I-BET762: lead optimization to afford a clinical candidate inhibitor of the BET bromodomains. J Med Chem. (2013) 56:7501–15. doi: 10.1021/jm401088k
275. Hilton J, Cristea M, Postel-Vinay S, Baldini C, Voskoboynik M, Edenfield W, et al. BMS-986158, a small molecule inhibitor of the bromodomain and extraterminal domain proteins, in patients with selected advanced solid tumors: results from a phase 1/2a trial. Cancers (Basel). (2022) 14:4079. doi: 10.3390/cancers14174079
276. Leal AS, Liu P, Krieger-Burke T, Ruggeri B, and Liby KT. The bromodomain inhibitor, INCB057643, targets both cancer cells and the tumor microenvironment in two preclinical models of pancreatic cancer. Cancers (Basel). (2020) 13:96. doi: 10.3390/cancers13010096
277. Bradbury RH, Callis R, Carr GR, Chen H, Clark E, Feron L, et al. Optimization of a series of bivalent triazolopyridazine based bromodomain and extraterminal inhibitors: the discovery of (3R)-4-[2-[4-[1-(3-methoxy-[1,2,4]triazolo[4,3-b]pyridazin-6-yl)-4-piperidyl]phenoxy]ethyl]-1,3-dimethyl-piperazin-2-one (AZD5153). J Med Chem. (2016) 59:7801–17. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00070
278. Aggarwal RR, Schweizer MT, Nanus DM, Pantuck AJ, Heath EI, Campeau E, et al. A phase ib/IIa study of the pan-BET inhibitor ZEN-3694 in combination with enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. (2020) 26:5338–47. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-1707
279. Mertz JA, Conery AR, Bryant BM, Sandy P, Balasubramanian S, Mele DA, et al. Targeting MYC dependence in cancer by inhibiting BET bromodomains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2011) 108:16669–74. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1108190108
280. Delmore JE, Issa GC, Lemieux ME, Rahl PB, Shi J, Jacobs HM, et al. BET bromodomain inhibition as a therapeutic strategy to target c-Myc. Cell. (2011) 146:904–17. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.08.017
281. He ZD, Zhang M, Wang YH, He Y, Wang HR, Chen BF, et al. Anti-PD-L1 mediating tumor-targeted codelivery of liposomal irinotecan/JQ1 for chemo-immunotherapy. Acta Pharmacol Sin. (2021) 42:1516–23. doi: 10.1038/s41401-020-00570-8
282. Li Y, Meng X, Chen G, Hou Y, Wu X, Wang J, et al. Lipid-mediated delivery of CD47 siRNA aids JQ1 in ensuring simultaneous downregulation of PD-L1 and CD47 and improves antitumor immunotherapy efficacy. Biomater Sci. (2022) 10:6755–67. doi: 10.1039/D2BM01354A
283. Liu K, Zhou Z, Gao H, Yang F, Qian Y, Jin H, et al. JQ1, a BET-bromodomain inhibitor, inhibits human cancer growth and suppresses PD-L1 expression. Cell Biol Int. (2019) 43:642–50. doi: 10.1002/cbin.11139
284. Pan Y, Fei Q, Xiong P, Yang J, Zhang Z, Lin X, et al. Synergistic inhibition of pancreatic cancer with anti-PD-L1 and c-Myc inhibitor JQ1. Oncoimmunology. (2019) 8:e1581529. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2019.1581529
285. Sauvage D, Bosseler M, Viry E, Kanli G, Oudin A, Berchem G, et al. The BET protein inhibitor JQ1 decreases hypoxia and improves the therapeutic benefit of anti-PD-1 in a high-risk neuroblastoma mouse model. Cells. (2022) 11:2783. doi: 10.3390/cells11182783
286. Zhang M, Wang G, Ma Z, Xiong G, Wang W, Huang Z, et al. BET inhibition triggers antitumor immunity by enhancing MHC class I expression in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Mol Ther. (2022) 30:3394–413. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2022.07.022
287. Li X, Fu Y, Yang B, Guo E, Wu Y, Huang J, et al. BRD4 inhibition by AZD5153 promotes antitumor immunity via depolarizing M2 macrophages. Front Immunol. (2020) 11:89. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00089
288. Fu Y, Yang B, Cui Y, Hu X, Li X, Lu F, et al. BRD4 inhibition impairs DNA mismatch repair, induces mismatch repair mutation signatures and creates therapeutic vulnerability to immune checkpoint blockade in MMR-proficient tumors. J Immunother Cancer. (2023) 11. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2022-006070
289. Senapedis W, Gallagher KM, Figueroa E, Farelli JD, Lyng R, Hodgson JG, et al. Targeted transcriptional downregulation of MYC using epigenomic controllers demonstrates antitumor activity in hepatocellular carcinoma models. Nat Commun. (2024) 15:7875. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-52202-y
290. Omega therapeutics announces promising preliminary clinical data for OTX-2002 from ongoing MYCHELANGELO™ I trial. Available online at: https://ir.omegatherapeutics.com/news-releases/news-release-details/omega-therapeutics-announces-promising-preliminary-clinical-data2023 (Accessed December 17, 2025).
291. Shorstova T, Foulkes WD, and Witcher M. Achieving clinical success with BET inhibitors as anti-cancer agents. Br J Cancer. (2021) 124:1478–90. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01321-0
292. Soucek L, Helmer-Citterich M, Sacco A, Jucker R, Cesareni G, and Nasi S. Design and properties of a Myc derivative that efficiently homodimerizes. Oncogene. (1998) 17:2463–72. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1202199
293. Soucek L, Jucker R, Panacchia L, Ricordy R, Tato F, and Nasi S. Omomyc, a potential Myc dominant negative, enhances Myc-induced apoptosis. Cancer Res. (2002) 62:3507–10.
294. Fiorentino FP, Tokgun E, Sole-Sanchez S, Giampaolo S, Tokgun O, Jauset T, et al. Growth suppression by MYC inhibition in small cell lung cancer cells with TP53 and RB1 inactivation. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:31014–28. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.8826
295. Beaulieu ME, Jauset T, Masso-Valles D, Martinez-Martin S, Rahl P, Maltais L, et al. Intrinsic cell-penetrating activity propels Omomyc from proof of concept to viable anti-MYC therapy. Sci Transl Med. (2019) 11. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aar5012
296. Pesarrodona M, Jauset T, Diaz-Riascos ZV, Sanchez-Chardi A, Beaulieu ME, Seras-Franzoso J, et al. Targeting antitumoral proteins to breast cancer by local administration of functional inclusion bodies. Adv Sci (Weinh). (2019) 6:1900849. doi: 10.1002/advs.201900849
297. Massó-Vallés D, Beaulieu M-E, Jauset T, Giuntini F, Zacarías-Fluck MF, Foradada L, et al. MYC inhibition halts metastatic breast cancer progression by blocking growth, invasion, and seeding. Cancer Res Commun. (2022) 2:110–30. doi: 10.1158/2767-9764.CRC-21-0103
298. Bibbo S, Capone E, Lovato G, Ponziani S, Lamolinara A, Iezzi M, et al. EV20/Omomyc: A novel dual MYC/HER3 targeting immunoconjugate. J Ctrl Rel. (2024) 374:171–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2024.08.009
299. Wang E, Sorolla A, Cunningham PT, Bogdawa HM, Beck S, Golden E, et al. Tumor penetrating peptides inhibiting MYC as a potent targeted therapeutic strategy for triple-negative breast cancers. Oncogene. (2019) 38:140–50. doi: 10.1038/s41388-018-0421-y
300. Sarti E, Dolle C, Wolfensberger R, Kusejko K, Russenberger D, Bredl S, et al. c-myc inhibits macrophage antimycobacterial response in mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. J Infect Dis. (2025) 232:e691–703. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiaf456
301. Krzeminski P, González-Méndez L, Segundo LS, Mogollón P, Diaz A, Hernández-García S, et al. Abstract 1291: The novel c-MYC inhibitor IDP-121 exhibits strong anti-myeloma effect. AACR: Cancer Res. (2021) 81:1291. doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2021-1291
302. Gargini R, Segura-Collar B, Garranzo-Asensio M, Hortiguela R, Iglesias-Hernandez P, Lobato-Alonso D, et al. IDP-410: a novel therapeutic peptide that alters N-MYC stability and reduces angiogenesis and tumor progression in glioblastomas. Neurotherapeutics. (2022) 19:408–20. doi: 10.1007/s13311-021-01176-6
303. Han H, Jain AD, Truica MI, Izquierdo-Ferrer J, Anker JF, Lysy B, et al. Small-molecule MYC inhibitors suppress tumor growth and enhance immunotherapy. Cancer Cell. (2019) 36:483–97 e15. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2019.10.001
304. Lee KM, Lin CC, Servetto A, Bae J, Kandagatla V, Ye D, et al. Epigenetic repression of STING by MYC promotes immune evasion and resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Immunol Res. (2022) 10:829–43. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-21-0826
305. Liu S, Qin Z, Mao Y, Zhang W, Wang Y, Jia L, et al. Therapeutic targeting of MYC in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oncoimmunology. (2022) 11:2130583. doi: 10.1080/2162402x.2022.2130583
306. Mullard A. Climbing cancer's MYC mountain. Nat Rev Drug Discov. (2022) 21:865–7. doi: 10.1038/d41573-022-00192-1
307. Xu Y, Yu Q, Wang P, Wu Z, Zhang L, Wu S, et al. A Selective Small-Molecule c-Myc Degrader Potently Regresses Lethal c-Myc Overexpressing Tumors. Adv Sci (Weinh). (2022) 9:e2104344. doi: 10.1002/advs.202104344
Keywords: immune evasion, MYC, resistance, targeted therapies, tumor microenvironment
Citation: González-Larreategui Í, Valdés-Bango Martín M, Casacuberta-Serra S and Soucek L (2026) MYC at the tumor–immune interface: mechanisms of immune escape and immunotherapy resistance. Front. Immunol. 17:1738440. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1738440
Received: 03 November 2025; Accepted: 05 January 2026; Revised: 16 December 2025;
Published: 23 January 2026.
Edited by:
Christian Klein, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, GermanyReviewed by:
John Knight, The University of Manchester, United KingdomJavier Leon, University of Cantabria, Spain
Copyright © 2026 González-Larreategui, Valdés-Bango Martín, Casacuberta-Serra and Soucek. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Sílvia Casacuberta-Serra, c2Nhc2FjdWJlcnRhQHBlcHRvbXljLmNvbQ==; Laura Soucek, bHNvdWNla0B2aGlvLm5ldA==