Fig. 2
From: FFAR2 expressing myeloid-derived suppressor cells drive cancer immunoevasion
FFAR2 deletion suppress the formation and progression of lung cancer. A The expression of FFAR2 and FFAR3 in LUAD tumor tissue and normal tissue was obtained from TCGA-LUAD database. B and C Representative immunofluorescence staining images of FFAR2 (red) and quantification of FFAR2 positive cells (B) in lung adenocarcinoma tissues and adjacent normal tissues of human lung cancer tissue array (n = 82, biological replicates). C Log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test of cumulative survival rates of lung adenocarcinoma patients subdivided by FFAR2 high expression (with > 10% cells positive for FFAR2, n = 42, biological replicates) and FFAR2 low expression (with ≤ 10% cells positive for FFAR2, n = 56, biological replicates) in tumor tissues. D FFAR2 expression in control lung tissue and urethane induced lung cancer tissue were determined by real-time RT-qPCR (n = 3, biological replicates). E and F Urethane-induced lung tumor nodules in mice were photographed and quantified (E) (n = 10, biological replicates). F Representative histopathology of tumor lungs was analyzed by H&E staining (n = 5, biological replicates). G In vivo imaging of tumor mice (n = 6, biological replicates) was conducted following intraperitoneal administration of substrate (D-luciferin, 150 mg/kg). Representative bioluminescence images were shown, and total flux of fluorescence was quantified (G). H and I Tumor volume (H) (n = 6, biological replicates) and survival rate of mice bearing LLC tumors were recorded (I) (n = 9, biological replicates). J and K Mice bearing LLC tumors were treated with PBS containing 0.5% DMSO or FFAR2 inhibitor (GLPG0974, 5 mg/kg per day). Tumor growth (J) and tumor weight (K) were recorded. L and M Ffar2+/+ and Ffar2−/− mice bearing LLC tumors (n = 6–8 mice/group) or B16F10 tumors (1 × 106 cells/mouse, n = 6–8 mice/group) were intraperitoneally injected with PBS or NaAc (500 mg/kg). LLC tumor growth (L) and B16F10 (M) tumor growth were recorded. D–M Data are shown as mean ± SEM, and the experiment was performed three times and a representative example is shown. D–H were analyzed by unpaired Student's t-test and J–M were analyzed by two-way ANOVA (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001 and NS, not significant)