ライフサイエンスコーパス: immunosuppressive

1 ry proteins (P = 0.002) and were only weakly immunosuppressive.

2 ificant thymic involution and rendered serum immunosuppressive.

3 These events convert immunosuppressive 4T1 tumor to an immunoresponsive one b

4 ly, we identified core motifs preventing the immunosuppressive activities of 2'OMe ASOs on TLR7.

5 on, PRCL-02 demonstrated evidence of in vivo immunosuppressive activity but was inferior to tacrolimu

6 Intestinal health relies on the immunosuppressive activity of CD4(+) regulatory T (T(reg

7 potential liquid-based tool to evaluate the immunosuppressive activity of intratumoral T(R)(eg) cell

8 ies have clearly established that the potent immunosuppressive activity of stroma is a major mechanis

9 ther the collagen density could modulate the immunosuppressive activity of TAMs.

10 The authors found that c-Maf promoted TAMs' immunosuppressive activity, governed their metabolic pro

11 cting reports indicate immunostimulatory and immunosuppressive activity, in that opioid users have el

12 unique function of regulating production of immunosuppressive adenosine (ADO) through the hydrolysis

13 h hydrolyse pro-inflammatory ATP to generate immunosuppressive adenosine, are therefore pivotal in ac

14 conversion of extracellular nucleotides into immunosuppressive adenosine.

15 Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is an immunosuppressive agent (IS) which is widely prescribed

16 ng monoclonal antibody being developed as an immunosuppressive agent.

17 mbination therapy; and (4) no treatment with immunosuppressive agents (control group).

18 ccination was 59% (61/104) in patients using immunosuppressive agents (groups 1-3) vs 81% (30/37) in

19 ors against conversion to GMG were receiving immunosuppressive agents (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19-0.97) and

20 e informed that taking pyridostigmine and/or immunosuppressive agents as well as smoking cessation mi

21 However concurrent use of immunosuppressive agents was prohibited in most CAR-T tr

22 he majority of IBD patients, those receiving immunosuppressive agents, and especially those receiving

23 ypically caused by cytotoxic chemotherapy or immunosuppressive agents.

24 ment includes immunoglobulin replacement and immunosuppressive agents.

25 An immunosuppressive AML microenvironment in the bone marro

26 eases are glucocorticoids, which exert their immunosuppressive and direct podocyte protective effects

27 arcinoma (PDAC) is considered to be a highly immunosuppressive and heterogenous neoplasm.

28 n-10 (IL-10) is a dimeric cytokine with both immunosuppressive and immunostimulatory activities; howe

29 ata suggest that while MDSC contribute to an immunosuppressive and less immunogenic environment, they

30 Immunosuppressive and/or anticytokine therapy is of limi

31 d to be mutagenic, nephrotoxic, teratogenic, immunosuppressive, and carcinogenic.

32 ng resolution of inflammation, without being immunosuppressive, and enhancing B cell Ab responses, co

33 effects on innate immune cells with a highly immunosuppressive antineoplastic drug.

34 Annexin A5 blocks immunosuppressive apoptosis and promotes immunostimulato

35 lecules that are structurally similar to the immunosuppressive B7 family members, yet how they regula

36 target macrophages in order to reduce their immunosuppressive capabilities and promote T cell functi

37 olecular mechanisms responsible for the high immunosuppressive capacity of CD4+ Tregs in tumors are n

38 R2 extracellular domain to ibalizumab, a non-immunosuppressive CD4 antibody(12,13), and named it CD4

39 decreased macrophages were present at RD and immunosuppressive cell states characterized PD.

40 l subtypes of human HGSC, with enrichment of immunosuppressive cell subsets such as myeloid-derived s

41 Prominent among immunosuppressive cells are myeloid-derived suppressor c

42 e atheroprotective, yet the numbers of these immunosuppressive cells decrease with disease progressio

43 Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are immunosuppressive cells that are increased in patients w

44 association with a decline in GrB-expressing immunosuppressive cells within the tumor microenvironmen

45 ctional effector lymphocytes, tumor-educated immunosuppressive cells, and soluble mediators coordinat

46 effect is achieved through the reduction of immunosuppressive cells, the improved cytotoxicity of T

47 This local immunosuppressive compound helps follow-up detection of

48 and cytokine secretion patterns to create an immunosuppressive condition for metastatic niche formati

49 l phenotypes at synthetic niches reflect the immunosuppressive conditioning within a host that contri

50 moke is a potent inflammatory trigger and is immunosuppressive, contributing to increased susceptibil

51 resentation only following disruption of the immunosuppressive cytokine barrier.

52 of CD8(+) T cell immunity, and instead, the immunosuppressive cytokine fibrinogen-like 2 (Fgl2) was

53 tory factors and decreased expression of the immunosuppressive cytokine IL-10.

54 rowth factor beta (TGFbeta) is a multipotent immunosuppressive cytokine.

55 es (TAM) that inhibit T cells via release of immunosuppressive cytokines and engagement of checkpoint

56 rough effects on gene expression, release of immunosuppressive cytokines and epithelial plasticity.

57 epithelial cells, as well as fibrogenic and immunosuppressive cytokines that interfere with the prop

58 Extending immunosuppressive drug coverage under Medicare from the

59 rovement in transplant survival by extending immunosuppressive drug coverage was estimated from a coh

60 llular genetic changes to the enhancement of immunosuppressive drug delivery.

61 ant care, and assessment of immune response, immunosuppressive drug efficacy, and graft function as d

62 lness severity, race/ethnicity, obesity, and immunosuppressive drug therapy.

63 ment of PG typically starts with fast-acting immunosuppressive drugs (corticosteroids and/or cyclospo

64 infusion of donor hematopoietic cells, then immunosuppressive drugs and antimicrobial approaches to

65 nction and the immunologic effects of common immunosuppressive drugs and available studies reporting

66 ocystis, mTOR inhibitors used as maintenance immunosuppressive drugs and the administration of cortic

67 th dupilumab without concomitant use of oral immunosuppressive drugs at five different time points (b

68 pse (HR = 0.32, P = .05) compared with other immunosuppressive drugs except for rituximab.

69 methods to advance the development of novel immunosuppressive drugs for use in solid organ transplan

70 ctiveness of extending Medicare coverage for immunosuppressive drugs over the duration of transplant

71 have their own toxicities and interact with immunosuppressive drugs such as calcineurin inhibitors.

72 Corticosteroids and immunosuppressive drugs were largely ineffective.

73 llowed by the addition of more slowly acting immunosuppressive drugs with superior adverse event prof

74 to reduce patient risk such as oral or less immunosuppressive drugs, in May and June, 2020.

75 osuppressive therapy by lowering exposure to immunosuppressive drugs, likely resulting in lower drug

76 mmatory process can be partially reversed by immunosuppressive drugs.

77 4 (61%) patients who failed treatment on >=2 immunosuppressive drugs.

78 bronchopulmonary system, and chemotherapy or immunosuppressive drugs.

79 s lesions includes glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive drugs; individuals not responding with

80 Therefore, mitigating the immunosuppressive effects of chronic smoke exposure and

81 Immunosuppressive effects of MTEX on primary human immun

82 r with Tdap or after Tdap, BCG abrogated the immunosuppressive effects of Tdap vaccination.

83 prominent antiviral effect that outcompeted immunosuppressive effects of TH2 cytokines, whereas HBV

84 ncing B cell Ab responses, could reverse the immunosuppressive effects resulting from tobacco smoke e

85 cer agents also mediate immunostimulatory or immunosuppressive effects that (at least in some setting

86 of ecto-5'-nucleotidase CD73, elicits potent immunosuppressive effects, and its upregulation in tumor

87 testing agents that have direct or indirect immunosuppressive effects.

88 T cell effector function, and (3) neutralize immunosuppressive elements within the tumor microenviron

89 ession of anti-PD-L1-gamma1 can overcome the immunosuppressive environment in MMC tumors.

90 tivities of immune cells, thus generating an immunosuppressive environment that prevents or attenuate

91 M-MDSC may favor an immunosuppressive environment that promotes tumoral deve

92 xisting therapies due to abundant stroma and immunosuppressive environment within the metastatic live

93 anisms used by TAM for the maintenance of an immunosuppressive environment.

94 is because of their capacities to sustain an immunosuppressive environment.

95 vel of extracellular ROS for the reversal of immunosuppressive environment.

96 n with tumor-induced polarization states and immunosuppressive environments.

97 ositive T cells and that Yap functions as an immunosuppressive factor and inhibitor of effector diffe

98 cluding inducing innate sensing and limiting immunosuppressive factors in the TME.

99 n be enhanced by targeted immunotherapy, the immunosuppressive factors induced by radiation on tumor

100 In addition, tumor cells upregulate various immunosuppressive factors to diminish the immune respons

101 Together, these data reveal multiple immunosuppressive features of OS and suggest immunothera

102 ulatory T cells (T(reg) cells) to counteract immunosuppressive features of the tumor microenvironment

103 ion, some antibiotic classes are reported as immunosuppressive for reasons that remain unclear.

104 Rbeta as the first marker that distinguishes immunosuppressive from nonimmunosuppressive subsets of M

105 tic tumor cells (efferocytosis) enhances the immunosuppressive function of bone marrow Ly6C(high) mye

106 of gemcitabine (GEM) treatment enhances the immunosuppressive function of monocytic MDSC (M-MDSC), a

107 LR7 agonist to these cells (i) reduced their immunosuppressive function, (ii) increased CD8(+) T-cell

108 ndidates due to beneficial proangiogenic and immunosuppressive function.

109 n melanoma cells and rely on Wnt5A for their immunosuppressive function.

110 their pro-angiogenic activity in addition to immunosuppressive function.

111 lular communication system that can exert an immunosuppressive function.

112 ate in the setting of cancer and have potent immunosuppressive functions hindering anti-tumor immunit

113 bacterial cell wall component, could display immunosuppressive functions in animals through mechanism

114 r beta1 (TGFbeta1) is a cytokine that exerts immunosuppressive functions, as reflected by its ability

115 nals by expanding myeloid cells endowed with immunosuppressive functions, further fostering tumor gro

116 Our study highlights a multidimensional immunosuppressive GBM microenvironment in patients with

117 ent- and hypoxia response element-containing immunosuppressive gene products (e.g., TGF-beta).

118 could become a novel combination partner for immunosuppressive GVHD therapy to be tested in clinical

119 The immunosuppressive human leukocyte antigens HLA-G and HLA

120 from tumour microenvironment to relieve the immunosuppressive ICD elicited by specific chemotherapy

121 response to the SARS-CoV2 and high levels of immunosuppressive IL-10 in both COVID-19 and dengue duri

122 This was in contrast to the immunosuppressive infection of macrophages with live par

123 herapy (LRT) can elicit both immunogenic and immunosuppressive local and systemic immune responses.

124 A shift from more immunosuppressive M-MDSC to G-MDSC, along with enhanced

125 mouse bone marrow cells and human PBMC into immunosuppressive M-MDSC.

126 contribute to the progression of IBD whereas immunosuppressive M2 macrophages protect against colitis

127 n and murine monocytes to differentiate into immunosuppressive M2 macrophages, suggesting that PAM3 m

128 The presence of immunosuppressive macrophages that become activated in t

129 Immunosuppressive maintenance medications during the fir

130 istics, clinical presentation, antiviral and immunosuppressive management were compared between patie

131 o resolve ambiguities, and could assist with immunosuppressive management.

132 Our data indicate that anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive mechanisms are not necessarily associa

133 This review explores immunosuppressive mechanisms that alter T-cell-mediated

134 ctivation often is counterbalanced by strong immunosuppressive mechanisms that are necessary to maint

135 a variety of T cell extrinsic and intrinsic immunosuppressive mechanisms that can become imprinted t

136 Our results indicate several immunosuppressive mechanisms that may be simultaneously

137 Tumors use active immunosuppressive mechanisms to evade immune recognition

138 th understanding of the biological basis and immunosuppressive mechanisms within the tumor microenvir

139 promote tumor proliferation through various immunosuppressive mechanisms.

140 Systemic immunosuppressive medication was more common among patie

141 Thus, although rapamycin is typically an immunosuppressive medication, in the context of sepsis,

142 at the point of diagnosis, before commencing immunosuppressive medication.

143 deprivation was associated with adherence to immunosuppressive medications after liver transplantatio

144 Concomitant immunosuppressive medications and topical and oral stero

145 Immunosuppressive medications can stabilize the disease,

146 these patients need lifelong treatment with immunosuppressive medications to maintain their transpla

147 Therefore, the immunosuppressive medications were discontinued, and hyd

148 ment with B-cell-targeted therapies or other immunosuppressive medications were excluded.

149 In a multivariable model, persons taking immunosuppressive medications were more likely to be ser

150 ble morbidity from glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive medications.

151 against primary tumours is hampered by their immunosuppressive microenvironment and by the greater in

152 ), in a tumor targeted manner to reverse the immunosuppressive microenvironment and facilitate the ch

153 squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) leads to an immunosuppressive microenvironment and reduces the respo

154 with a poor prognosis, partly because of the immunosuppressive microenvironment created by tumor-asso

155 together, 17-AAG liposomes could remodel the immunosuppressive microenvironment of triple negative br

156 Tumours with an immunosuppressive microenvironment respond poorly to the

157 a (PDAC) remains a lethal malignancy with an immunosuppressive microenvironment that is resistant to

158 Mouse PSCC fosters an immunosuppressive microenvironment with myeloid-derived

159 een IRISOE cells and macrophages triggers an immunosuppressive microenvironment within TNBC tumors th

160 pression of molecules engaged in shaping the immunosuppressive microenvironment, including programmed

161 ndritic cells, suggest the development of an immunosuppressive microenvironment.

162 cells may contribute to the formation of an immunosuppressive microenvironment.

163 ages, indicating that host Wnt5a promotes an immunosuppressive microenvironment.

164 d that local signaling can generate strongly immunosuppressive microenvironments within tumors, and e

165 of STAT3 and NF-kappaB activity promotes an immunosuppressive microglial phenotype.

166 pancreatic stellate cells and established an immunosuppressive milieu mediated by M2 macrophages, mye

167 which is required for prosurvival genes and immunosuppressive molecule expression.

168 mma, M-MDSCs release the tumor-promoting and immunosuppressive molecule nitric oxide (NO), whereas ma

169 coupling ICB with immunotherapies targeting immunosuppressive myeloid cells in CCA.

170 cell control of tumors, but is undermined by immunosuppressive myeloid cells.

171 oach may still be limited by the presence of immunosuppressive myeloid populations.

172 tionality and unveil strategies to reprogram immunosuppressive myelopoiesis in tumors to boost cancer

173 Wnt5A knockdown also decreased the immunosuppressive nature of MDSC and decreased expressio

174 s and potentially to overcome the inherently immunosuppressive nature of the tumor microenvironment.

175 mma signalling accompanied by an increase of immunosuppressive neutrophils within the tumour microenv

176 available about the presence and activity of immunosuppressive or immunostimulatory cell types in gli

177 h-1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunosuppressive pathway is often upregulated in MCC, a

178 unding desmoplastic stroma and targeting the immunosuppressive pathways have largely failed.

179 Specific targeting of these immunosuppressive pathways may reactivate anti-tumor imm

180 y methylated CpGs are predictive of both the immunosuppressive phenotype and altered heat shock respo

181 sistent with the increased anti-inflammatory/immunosuppressive phenotype in vitro, mirn23a (-/-) mice

182 r 30 days of recovery from EHS, exhibited an immunosuppressive phenotype when challenged in vitro by

183 nse of monocytic cells to IFNgamma toward an immunosuppressive phenotype, thus retrieving the antican

184 cDC2s into CD14(+) DCs, characterized by an immunosuppressive phenotype.

185 nsity can instruct macrophages to acquire an immunosuppressive phenotype.

186 y engineered to overexpress PD-L1 to produce immunosuppressive platelets.

187 une microenvironment is recognized as highly immunosuppressive, posing a major hurdle for inducing im

188 rrelation between the clinical significance, immunosuppressive potential, and transcriptional network

189 n their stem cell features and improve their immunosuppressive potential, demonstrated by the inhibit

190 ms have been described, which have different immunosuppressive potentials.

191 with no adverse effects and FN3-PARs reduced immunosuppressive programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1)

192 s a LAG-3-specific humanized agonist Ab with immunosuppressive properties both in vitro and in vivo i

193 impaired, a surprise finding considering the immunosuppressive properties commonly attributed to gluc

194 inical models that reliably recapitulate the immunosuppressive properties of human gliomas are essent

195 together with a potent effect on abrogating immunosuppressive properties of MDSC-like cells isolated

196 d that TLR3 engagement of hPDL cells induced immunosuppressive properties of these cells.

197 Because immunosuppressive properties play an important role in t

198 regs) are a lymphocyte subset with intrinsic immunosuppressive properties that can be expanded in lar

199 ciated vascularization and expression of the immunosuppressive protein PD-L1 in tumors.

200 MTEX were enriched in immunosuppressive proteins (P = 0.03).

201 mized to a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-based immunosuppressive regimen (tacrolimus) (n = 21), or an i

202 A calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-free immunosuppressive regimen has been demonstrated to impro

203 nsplant, adding everolimus (EVL) to standard immunosuppressive regimen mostly relies on converting ca

204 ere used to compare outcomes by CMV risk and immunosuppressive regimen.

205 We aimed to describe the immunosuppressive regimens and graft rejection rates in

206 ctive T cells under control in SLE patients, immunosuppressive regimens are used, which can increase

207 If not available, multiple immunosuppressive regimens have been used with poor dise

208 t acute rejection (AR) is common and optimal immunosuppressive regimens remain unclear.

209 reated according to current prophylactic and immunosuppressive regimens.

210 Further, highly immunosuppressive regulatory T cells (Tregs) (ie, ICOShi

211 Our findings reveal that IL-33 can promote immunosuppressive responses by polarizing AAMPhi via mas

212 us hypothesized that blockade of LRT-induced immunosuppressive responses could augment the antitumor

213 toxic, inflammatory responses in tumours and immunosuppressive responses in chronic inflammation.

214 e-cold behavior, and underscored a potential immunosuppressive role of neutrophil degranulation.

215 Taken together, our findings support the immunosuppressive role of stromal cells and T-cell exclu

216 oglia, contributed even more strongly to the immunosuppressive signature than the actual tumor cells.

217 taining T-cell activation and recruitment in immunosuppressive solid tumors.

218 we show that AnxA5 administration rescue the immunosuppressive state of the TME induced by chemothera

219 The immunosuppressive state of the tumor microenvironment di

220 or microenvironment, macrophages exist in an immunosuppressive state, preventing T cells from elimina

221 ed amino acid uptake is a potentially useful immunosuppressive strategy to control skin inflammation

222 ated mouse and human tumors and find that an immunosuppressive subset of these cells can be distingui

223 une suppression, and therapies targeting the immunosuppressive T(R)(eg) population are being actively

224 oughs in immunosuppression and subsides when immunosuppressive tacrolimus doses are increased.

225 ion cascade and an activating ligand for the immunosuppressive TAM family of receptor tyrosine kinase

226 olecular reason behind the acquisition of an immunosuppressive TAM phenotype is not fully clarified.

227 ar in the United States, and the presence of immunosuppressive TAMs at tumors is correlated with decr

228 plateaued in the USA in the past 20 years as immunosuppressive therapies have failed to reverse disea

229 mphangiogenesis in immunobiology, the impact immunosuppressive therapies have on the lymphatic system

230 The patient was treated with immunosuppressive therapies, with rituximab demonstratin

231 se with rheumatic diseases or who are taking immunosuppressive therapies.

232 s, functional parameters, comorbidities, and immunosuppressive therapies.

233 tation, exogenous insulin administration and immunosuppressive therapies.

234 3633 (10%) were IC; cancer (44%), nonsteroid immunosuppressive therapy (44%), and HIV (18%) were most

235 n plus GVHD prophylaxis group were free from immunosuppressive therapy at 24 months compared with 18

236 tervention group with additional steering of immunosuppressive therapy by levels of virus-specific T

237 results in a similar eGFR, and personalizes immunosuppressive therapy by lowering exposure to immuno

238 Steering immunosuppressive therapy by virus-specific T cell level

239 Additional steering of immunosuppressive therapy by virus-specific T cell level

240 e the possibility that empiric reductions in immunosuppressive therapy for all kidney transplant reci

241 Immunosuppressive therapy improved patients' HRCT scan s

242 Immunosuppressive therapy improved the radiographic abno

243 rt review of pediatric patients treated with immunosuppressive therapy in the uveitis clinic at the C

244 Immunosuppressive therapy may be helpful in limiting dis

245 ients and to better understand the impact of immunosuppressive therapy on IgE sensitization, we prosp

246 splant recipients receiving tacrolimus-based immunosuppressive therapy similar clinical outcomes may

247 roup receiving metformin, independently from immunosuppressive therapy that was similar among groups,

248 ive immune response, thus enabling exogenous immunosuppressive therapy to be significantly reduced or

249 9 patients with CVID and GLILD who completed immunosuppressive therapy was performed.

250 with checkpoint inhibitors, and any previous immunosuppressive therapy within the 30 days before stud

251 The primary endpoint, freedom from immunosuppressive therapy without resumption at 12 month

252 pVL), symptomatic disease, and the impact of immunosuppressive therapy, 38 women living with HTLV-1 i

253 ansplantation, including decreases in use of immunosuppressive therapy, chronic GVHD and its symptoms

254 em cell or organ transplantation, nonsteroid immunosuppressive therapy, immunoglobulin deficiency, as

255 atients with noninfectious uveitis requiring immunosuppressive therapy, in which posterior segment in

256 After reducing immunosuppressive therapy, levels of BKPyV-specific CD4

257 ntly, in patients treated with long-standing immunosuppressive therapy, such as in inflammatory bowel

258 Treatment of LN usually involves immunosuppressive therapy, typically with mycophenolate

259 Among those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, visual function improved in 5

260 uld be administered before the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

261 ity for surgery, or inform administration of immunosuppressive therapy.

262 ve clinical outcomes in addition to standard immunosuppressive therapy.

263 al for optimizing tailored administration of immunosuppressive therapy.

264 reduced lipid accumulation independently of immunosuppressive therapy.

265 nature in human monocytes correlates with an immunosuppressive TME in multiple human tumors.

266 environment (TME) GES levels at baseline; an immunosuppressive TME may also preclude CR.

267 tentially taking part in the formation of an immunosuppressive TME.

268 transforms the tumour microenvironment from immunosuppressive to immunostimulatory, increasing the e

269 es in preclinical studies is presented, from immunosuppressive to proinflammatory strategies, with pa

270 bition by intracellular cAMP and (b) prevent immunosuppressive transcription of cAMP response element

271 We also give special consideration to immunosuppressive treatment and cell-depleting therapies

272 Timely systemic immunosuppressive treatment in patients with a high risk

273 atients with autoimmune conditions requiring immunosuppressive treatment such as infliximab and ritux

274 (n=163) with autoimmune conditions requiring immunosuppressive treatment were evaluated.

275 y, and 45% of patients received cytotoxic or immunosuppressive treatment within 90 days of admission.

276 About immunosuppressive treatment, <60% of the cohort had indu

277 intestinal and colon allograft with standard immunosuppressive treatment, achieving excellent graft f

278 d the multiple comorbidities associated with immunosuppressive treatment, including infections, osteo

279 However, despite immunosuppressive treatment, long-term survival of the a

280 complete stable remission without additional immunosuppressive treatments.

281 ained interest for determining and targeting immunosuppressive tumor micro-environments that remain a

282 Immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) and ascit

283 promising therapeutics for remodeling of the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) and enhan

284 m blood monocytes are key in establishing an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) for the s

285 amed gene expression signature (GES) or high immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) GES level

286 The immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) is a majo

287 ies, immunotherapies have been limited by an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) that prev

288 o the difficulty of reprogramming the highly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME).

289 herapies, contributes to the formation of an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME).

290 D@Hf-DBP/alphaCD47 effectively modulates the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and activates i

291 xosomes from MKN-45 cells, mice developed an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment in the lung wit

292 te cancer, PTEN loss appears to establish an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment through the act

293 dy thus reveals an approach to targeting the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment with monoclonal

294 due to a poorly immunogenic and exceedingly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, which is enric

295 conclusion, our strategy induces reversal of immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, while enhancin

296 kpoint blockade immunotherapy as a result of immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment.

297 tors in the bone marrow, which overcomes the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment.

298 ent components have been shown to promote an immunosuppressive tumor milieu.

299 protocols tolerize patients using cytotoxic immunosuppressives, which can cause adverse effects.

300 LASV infection is immunosuppressive, with a very low-level interferon resp