The recognition of the immune system as a key component of the tumor microenvironment (TME) led to promising therapeutics. Because such therapies benefit only subsets of patients, understanding the activities of immune cells in the TME is required. Eosinophils are an integral part of the TME especially in mucosal tumors. Nonetheless, their role in the TME and the environmental cues that direct their activities are largely unknown. We report that breast cancer lung metastases are characterized by resident and recruited eosinophils. Eosinophil recruitment to the metastatic sites in the lung was regulated by G protein–coupled receptor signaling but independent of CCR3. Functionally, eosinophils promoted lymphocyte-mediated antitumor immunity. Transcriptome and proteomic analyses identified the TME rather than intrinsic differences between eosinophil subsets as a key instructing factor directing antitumorigenic eosinophil activities. Specifically, TNFα/IFNγ–activated eosinophils facilitated CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell infiltration and promoted antitumor immunity. Collectively, we identify a mechanism by which the TME trains eosinophils to adopt antitumorigenic properties, which may lead to the development of eosinophil-targeted therapeutics. Significance: These findings demonstrate antitumor activities of eosinophils in the metastatic tumor microenvironment, suggesting that harnessing eosinophil activity may be a viable clinical strategy in patients with cancer.

Eosinophils are multifunctional, evolutionary conserved leukocytes that are involved in a plethora of responses ranging from regulation of tissue homeostasis to host defense and cancer. Eosinophils have been studied mostly in the context of Type 2 inflammatory responses such as those found in allergy. Nonetheless, it is now evident that they participate in Type 1 inflammatory responses and can respond to Type 1 cytokines such as IFN-γ. Recent data suggest that the pleotropic roles of eosinophils are due to heterogeneous responses to environmental cues. Despite this, the activation profile of eosinophils, in response to various stimuli is yet to be defined. To better understand the transcriptional spectrum of eosinophil activation, we exposed eosinophils to Type 1 (e.g. IFN-γ, E. coli) vs. Type 2 (e.g. IL-4) conditions and subjected them to global RNA sequencing. Our analyses show that IL-4, IFN-γ, E. coli and IFN-γ in the presence of E. coli (IFN-γ/E. coli)-stimulated eosinophils acquire distinct transcriptional profiles, which polarize them towards what we termed Type 1 and Type 2 eosinophils. Bioinformatics analyses using Gene Ontology based on biological processes revealed that different stimuli induced distinct pathways in eosinophils. These pathways were confirmed using functional assays by assessing cytokine/chemokine release (i.e. CXCL9, CCL24, TNF-α and IL-6) from eosinophils following activation. In addition, analysis of cell surface markers highlighted CD101 and CD274 as potential cell surface markers that distinguish between Type 1 and Type 2 eosinophils, respectively. Finally, the transcriptome signature of Type 1 eosinophils resembled that of eosinophils that were obtained from mice with experimental colitis whereas the transcriptome signature of Type 2 eosinophils resembled that of eosinophils from experimental asthma. Our data demonstrate that eosinophils are polarized to distinct “Type 1” and “Type 2” phenotypes following distinct stimulations. These findings provide fundamental knowledge regarding the heterogeneity of eosinophils and support the presence of transcriptional differences between Type 1 and Type 2 cells that are likely reflected by their pleotropic activities in diverse disease settings.

Eosinophils are bone marrow-derived granulocytes that display key effector functions in allergic diseases. Nonetheless, recent data highlight important roles for eosinophils in the tumor microenvironment (TME). Eosinophils have been attributed with pleiotropic and perhaps conflicting functions, which may be attributed at least in part to variations in eosinophil quantitation in the TME. Thus, a reliable, quantitative, and robust method for the assessment of eosinophilic infiltration in the TME is required. This type of methodology could standardize the identification of these cells and promote the subsequent generation of hypothesis-driven mechanistic studies. To this end, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of multiple primary tumors from distinct anatomical sites using a standardized method. Bioinformatics analysis of 10,469 genomically profiled primary tumors revealed that eosinophil abundance within different tumors can be categorized into three groups representing tumors with high, intermediate, and low eosinophil levels. Consequently, eosinophil abundance, as well as spatial distribution, was determined in tissue tumor arrays of six tumors representing all three classifications (colon and esophagus -high; lungintermediate; cervix, ovary, and breast -low). With the exception of breast cancer, eosinophils were mainly localized in the tumor stroma. Importantly, the tumor anatomical site was identified as the primary predictive factor of eosinophil stromal density highlighting a distinction between mucosal-barrier organs versus non-mucosal barrier organs. These findings enhance our understanding of eosinophil diversity in the TME and provide a compelling rationale for future experiments assessing the activity of these cells.

Background Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, food‐driven allergic disease, characterized by eosinophil‐rich inflammation in the esophagus. The histopathological and clinical features of EoE have been attributed to overproduction of the type 2 cytokines IL‐4 and IL‐13, which mediate profound alterations in the esophageal epithelium and neutralizing of their shared receptor component (IL‐4Rα) with a human antibody drug (dupilumab) demonstrates clinical efficacy. Yet, the relative contribution of IL‐4 and IL‐13 and whether the type II IL‐4 receptor (comprised of the IL‐4Rα chain in association with IL‐13Rα1) mediates this effect has not been determined. Methods Experimental EoE was induced in WT, Il13ra1−/−, and Krt14Cre/Il13ra1fl/fl mice by skin‐sensitized using 4‐ethoxymethylene‐2‐phenyl‐2‐oxazolin (OXA) followed by intraesophageal challenges. Esophageal histopathology was determined histologically. RNA was extracted and sequenced for transcriptome analysis and compared with human EoE RNAseq data. Results Induction of experimental EoE in mice lacking Il13ra1 and in vivo IL‐13 antibody‐based neutralization experiments blocked antigen‐induced esophageal epithelial and lamina propria thickening, basal cell proliferation, eosinophilia, and tissue remodeling. In vivo targeted deletion of Il13ra1 in esophageal epithelial cells rendered mice protected from experimental EoE. Single‐cell RNA sequencing analysis of human EoE biopsies revealed predominant expression of IL‐13Rα1 in epithelial cells and that EoE signature genes correlated with IL‐13 expression compared with IL‐4. Conclusions We demonstrate a definitive role for IL‐13 signaling via IL‐13Rα1 in EoE. These data provide mechanistic insights into the mode of action of current therapies in EoE and highlight the type II IL‐4R as a future therapeutic target.

No abstract