
==== Front
Neurooncol Adv
Neurooncol Adv
noa
Neuro-Oncology Advances
2632-2498
Oxford University Press US

10.1093/noajnl/vdae142
vdae142
Review
AcademicSubjects/MED00300
AcademicSubjects/MED00310
Macrophage migration inhibitory factor as a therapeutic target in neuro-oncology: A review
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7329-0665
Jarmula Jakub Department of Molecular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8276-5020
Lee Juyeun Department of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5654-0784
Lauko Adam Department of Molecular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Rajappa Prajwal Institute for Genomic Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA

Grabowski Matthew M Department of Molecular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Department of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Rose Ella Burkhardt Brain Tumor and Neuro-Oncology Center, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Dhawan Andrew Department of Molecular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Department of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Rose Ella Burkhardt Brain Tumor and Neuro-Oncology Center, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Chen Peiwen Department of Molecular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Department of Cancer Biology, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Bucala Richard Section of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology, Yale Cancer Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

Vogelbaum Michael A Department of Neuro-Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida, USA

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3168-7290
Lathia Justin D Department of Molecular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Department of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Rose Ella Burkhardt Brain Tumor and Neuro-Oncology Center, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Corresponding Author: Justin D. Lathia, PhD, Department of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, NC10, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA (lathiaj@ccf.org).
Jan-Dec 2024
10 8 2024
10 8 2024
6 1 vdae14204 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press, the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Primary central nervous system (CNS) tumors affect tens of thousands of patients each year, and there is a significant need for new treatments. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is a cytokine implicated in multiple tumorigenic processes such as cell proliferation, vascularization, and immune evasion and is therefore a promising therapeutic target in primary CNS tumors. There are several MIF-directed treatments available, including small-molecule inhibitors, peptide drugs, and monoclonal antibodies. However, only a small number of these drugs have been tested in preclinical models of primary CNS tumors, and even fewer have been studied in patients. Moreover, the brain has unique therapeutic requirements that further make effective targeting challenging. In this review, we summarize the latest functions of MIF in primary CNS tumor initiation and progression. We also discuss advances in MIF therapeutic development and ongoing preclinical studies and clinical trials. Finally, we discuss potential future MIF therapies and the strategies required for successful clinical translation.

glioblastoma
macrophage migration inhibitory factor
tumor microenvironment
National Institutes of Health 10.13039/100000002 F30 CA250254 P01 CA245705 R01 NS127984 R35 NS127083 R01 NS127824 R01 NS124594 Department of Defense Career Development W81XWH-21-1-0380 American Brain Tumor Association 10.13039/100001453 Case Comprehensive Cancer Center 10.13039/100008533 Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute
==== Body
pmcEach year, over 70 000 people in the United States are diagnosed with a primary central nervous system (CNS) tumor, and approximately 20 000 are diagnosed with a malignant tumor, with glioblastoma being the most common type.1 Despite persistent efforts by researchers and clinicians, patients continue to face a poor prognosis2; for this reason, there remains a significant need to better understand neuro-oncological diseases and develop effective therapies for patients. The initiation and progression of primary CNS tumors is a multifaceted process.3 Tumor cells possess distinct genetic and epigenetic alterations throughout tumorigenesis, while also exhibiting spatial heterogeneity. The tumor microenvironment (TME) is a dynamic ecosystem that shapes tumor behavior, with angiogenesis and neovascularization supplying nutrients to rapidly growing cells and immunosuppression reducing tumoricidal activity by leukocytes. Collectively, these processes promote tumor growth, and their mediators represent potential therapeutic targets.

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) has been implicated in several of these oncological processes, including driving tumor cell proliferation, inhibiting apoptosis, increasing vascularization, promoting cell migration, and evading immune detection and destruction. Based on the importance of MIF in normal homeostasis and its alterations in pathological conditions such as cancer, there have been several classes of drugs developed against MIF. These therapeutic strategies have been tested in several preclinical models and early-phase clinical trials; however, these studies are limited in primary CNS tumor preclinical models and even more so in the clinical setting. The purpose of this review article is to report the latest information on MIF, its role in primary CNS tumors—with an emphasis on the most common malignant type, glioblastoma, but also including craniopharyngioma, medulloblastoma, meningioma, pituitary adenoma, and vestibular schwannoma—available MIF-directed treatments, and potential future therapies. MIF-directed treatments have the potential to complement existing therapies for primary CNS tumors, especially for malignant tumors such as glioblastoma and medulloblastoma. These new drugs may target existing MIF-mediated signaling pathways or act through novel mechanisms that remain to be identified in preclinical models. With its diverse and tissue-specific functions, MIF may drive additional aspects of tumorigenesis, such as enhancing tumor-promoting inflammation, activating invasion, and deregulating cellular metabolism. Potential new therapies may target one, or multiple, of these processes and expand the therapeutic arsenal against primary CNS tumors.

Established Molecular Signaling Pathways

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor is encoded in humans by the MIF gene located on chromosome 22q11.23.4 This highly conserved, homotrimeric protein is expressed by a wide range of cell types,5 including B and T lymphocytes,6 pituitary cells,7 vascular endothelial cells,8 adipocytes,9 and macrophages.10 Experimental models have uncovered several regulatory and effector pathways in MIF signaling.11,12 MIF is secreted by leukocytes in response to both inflammatory stimuli, such as lipopolysaccharide,13 and low concentrations of glucocorticoids.14 MIF functions as a proinflammatory cytokine in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, leading to increased levels of nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) to reduce glucocorticoid-induced immunosuppression.15,16 MIF results in decreased monocyte and macrophage expression of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1 (MKP-1), increasing transcription of tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 8 (I-8).17 These cytokines, as well as MIF, promote T lymphocyte proliferation and activation.18–20 MIF binds to a series of receptors, including CD74 and the chemokine C-X-C motif receptors (CXCR) CXCR2 and CXCR4 (Figure 1). The specific receptor functions and specificity are discussed in more detail below.

Figure 1. MIF-mediated signaling pathways in primary CNS tumors. CXCR2 = chemokine C-X-C motif receptor 2; G-MDSC = granulocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cell; GBM = glioblastoma; IFN-g = interferon gamma; M-MDSC = monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cell; MIF = macrophage migration inhibitory factor; MCP-1 = monocyte chemoattractant protein-1; NK = natural killer cell; NKG2D = natural killer group 2 member D receptor.

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor has been demonstrated to have enzymatic activity, functioning as a tautomerase to convert model substrates into their isomers.21,22 However, the physiological significance of these reactions remains undefined, and naturally occurring substrates have not yet been identified. Although the catalytic activity of the MIF tautomerase site is of uncertain significance, the catalytic region of the protein structure is important for cell signaling.23 The MIF tautomerase site binds to cluster of differentiation 74 (CD74), also known as major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II invariant chain.24 CD74 is largely expressed in various immune cells, where it primarily serves intracellularly as a chaperone protein of MHC II for antigen presentation.25 MIF also affects intracellular signaling pathways that regulate B lymphocyte development and T lymphocyte thymic selection.26,27 In addition to leukocytes, CD74 expression has been identified in glioblastoma.28 Emerging studies have also described a role for MIF/CD74 signaling in malignant progression of low-grade glioma to high grade.29

In many cell types, the binding of MIF to CD74 recruits CD44 into a CD74 signaling complex, allowing Src tyrosine kinase to phosphorylate extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2).24,30,31 In neutrophils and macrophages, ERK1/2 phosphorylation decreases apoptosis, which increases leukocyte-mediated inflammation.32 In non-leukocytes, ERK1/2 phosphorylation increases podocyte and smooth muscle cell proliferation by modulating cell cycle-regulatory proteins, such as cyclin D1.33,34 Src also phosphorylates phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), potentiating Akt activity to reduce vascular endothelial cell apoptosis.35 In models of breast and endometrial cancer, MIF promotes angiogenesis through increased levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and IL-8.36,37 NF-κB, Src, and PI3K also upregulate adhesion molecules and mechanical proteins such as myosin to facilitate monocyte and dendritic cell migration.35,38 The CD74/CD44 complex also results in increased myeloid-derived suppressor cell (MDSC) secretion of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), which further recruits monocytes and MDSCs to the glioblastoma TME,39 and the phosphorylation of adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK).40 AMPK is a critical regulator of cell metabolism, enhancing energy availability by acutely affecting catabolic and anabolic pathways and chronically augmenting mitochondrial biogenesis.41,42 These energetic changes may complement the inhibition of apoptosis to support tumor cell proliferation; however, this effect remains to be studied in primary CNS tumors.

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor also binds to chemokine receptors. In complex with CD74, CXCR2 is a Gαi protein-coupled receptor with a downstream signaling cascade that activates integrins, such as leukocyte function-associated antigen-1 (LFA-1), to anchor monocytes during their recruitment.43 The name for MIF, macrophage migration inhibitory factor, originates from its ability to affect chemokine receptor de-sensitization.44,45 MIF binding to CXCR4 alone has a similar effect on T lymphocyte recruitment.43 However, MIF does not inhibit leukocyte migration entirely. The leukocyte adhesion cascade requires initial, albeit brief, leukocyte arrest adjacent to the vascular endothelium prior to transmigration, after which leukocytes migrate toward their destination.46 Therefore, MIF was named based on the observation that it facilitates the first stage of the leukocyte adhesion cascade, that is, leukocyte arrest prior to transmigration. However, after transmigration, MIF acts through CXCR2 and CXCR4 to promote the movement of monocytes and T lymphocytes toward their target.43 These effects emphasize the diverse and context-dependent functions of MIF and its receptors.

Different cell populations express specific configurations of these receptors, enabling MIF to modulate a variety of pathways.47 CD74/CXCR4 regulates intracellular Akt signaling to promote leukocyte proliferation.48 MIF bound to atypical chemokine receptor 3 (ACKR3) alone increases platelet survival through this pathway,49 but in complex with CD74 and CXCR4, it activates ERK1/2 and zeta-chain-associated protein kinase-70 to drive migration of B lymphocytes.50–52 In MDSCs, monocytic MDSCs in the glioblastoma TME have higher levels of CD74 expression, while granulocytic MDSCs outside the CNS have higher expression of CXCR2.39

In neural stem progenitor cells, MIF binds to CD74, CD44, CXCR2, and CXCR4 in an unspecified configuration to increase cell proliferation and differentiation via the Wnt/β-catenin pathway.53,54 MIF also activates the signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3)/SRY-box transcription factor 6 (SOX6)55 and paired box 6(PAX6)/chromatin helicase-DNA-binding protein 7 (CHD7)/translationally controlled tumor protein-1 (TPT1)56,57 pathways to promote neural stem progenitor cell proliferation. In a murine model of glioblastoma, TPT1 also promotes tumor cell proliferation.57 These signaling pathways are further augmented by the endocytosis of MIF and its direct binding with intracellular proteins, such as p53, in glioma-initiating cells.58 Other potential intracellular proteins may include c-Jun activation domain-binding protein 1 (Jab1),59,60 the NOD-, LRR-, and pyrin domain-containing protein 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome,61 and superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1),62 which remain to be studied in primary CNS tumor models. In addition to influencing intracellular signaling, MIF also remodels the extracellular environment. MIF upregulates synovial fibroblast matrix metalloproteinase expression levels, which can promote tissue degradation and cell migration.63 In meningioma, co-expression of MIF with matrix metalloproteinase-9 was associated with increased tumor invasion and recurrence.64 In glioblastoma, MIF activates CXCR4 to promote a mesenchymal phenotype and contribute to tumor invasion.65

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor is a highly conserved protein expressed by numerous cell types, resulting in tissue-specific properties. It is primarily an inflammatory cytokine with variegated intra- and extracellular effects stemming from its diverse interactions. Its most notable functions are to reduce glucocorticoid-associated immunosuppression, decrease cell apoptosis, increase mitochondrial energy production, promote angiogenesis, and facilitate cell migration. These molecular pathways and their perturbations have important implications for primary CNS tumor development and progression.

Impact on Primary CNS Tumor Development and Progression

Given the pleiotropic functions of MIF discussed above, there has been a concerted effort to characterize MIF expression in a variety of CNS tumors and link expression to tumor grade and outcome. Moreover, functional studies have also interrogated the multitude of cancer-related phenotypes associated with MIF, including cell survival/death, invasion, angiogenesis, and immune suppression.

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor expression has been observed in several primary CNS tumor types. Pituitary adenoma expresses higher levels of MIF protein compared to nontumorous pituitary tissue, with consistently elevated levels across adenoma subtypes, such as nonfunctional or prolactin secreting.66 Single-cell ribonucleic acid (RNA) sequencing suggests that MIF secreted by pituitary adenoma cells and tumor-associated fibroblasts contributes to TME immunosuppression.67 Increased MIF protein expression has been also identified in meningioma64,68 and medulloblastoma.69,70 Craniopharyngioma demonstrates a wide range of MIF RNA levels that differ greatly among tumor cell subtypes based on single-cell sequencing, though there is limited information on the functional consequences of these expression patterns.71 Increased MIF protein levels have been implicated in several aspects of glioblastoma initiation and progression (Figure 2),72–74and many of these phototypes likely apply to other primary CNS tumors.

Figure 2. The effects of MIF on GBM behavior. CXCR2 = chemokine C-X-C motif receptor 2; CXCR4 = chemokine C-X-C motif receptor 4; G-MDSC = granulocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cell; GBM = glioblastoma; M-MDSC = monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cell; MIF = macrophage migration inhibitory factor; MCP-1 = monocyte chemoattractant protein-1; NK = natural killer cell; TPT1 = translationally controlled tumor protein-1.

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor binds to p53 to both activate the cell cycle and inhibit apoptosis, which increases glioblastoma cell proliferation.58 These effects are consistent with its established function of decreasing leukocyte apoptosis. MIF also reduces contact inhibition to drive localized glioblastoma cell proliferation, though the exact mechanism remains unknown.75 By promoting a mesenchymal phenotype, MIF can increase glioblastoma cell growth more distally through tumor spread.65 However, in glioblastoma models, MIF was shown to be dispensable for tumor cell proliferation and survival, as shRNA-mediated reduction of MIF did not impact these phenotypes.74 This suggests that, in glioblastoma, the dominant function of MIF is likely not regulating cell proliferation or cell death.

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor also stimulates tumor vascularization. Hypoxia in necrotic regions of glioblastoma increases MIF secretion, which activates CXCR4 to induce peritumoral vascular network formation.65,73 This pathway represents a VEGF-independent mechanism of vascularization. However, studies suggest interdependent signaling between VEGF and MIF. The amount of MIF messenger RNA (mRNA) strongly correlates with VEGF mRNA levels in glioblastoma.76 This observation may stem from activation of a common upstream pathway; however, the addition of MIF protein induced VEGF secretion in an in vitro model of breast cancer.36 Conversely, an intracranial xenograft model of glioblastoma showed evidence of VEGF-dependent expression of MIF.77 This phenomenon remains understudied in primary CNS tumors, but existing evidence suggests that MIF and VEGF may reciprocally drive tumor angiogenesis.

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor has been observed to modulate AMPK activity and regulate energy production. This function may be implicated in primary CNS tumor cell proliferation. In nontumorous cells, MIF activates AMPK to increase energy production and reduce energy-intensive processes. However, in lung cancer cells, MIF overexpression inhibits AMPK activation to sustain tumor growth.78 This observation demonstrates the extensive effects of MIF, which are modulated by receptor heteromerization and their downstream signaling cascades. AMPK typically promotes mitochondrial degradation in response to energetic stress; however, glioblastoma cells alter mitochondrial availability and function to support cell proliferation.79,80 MIF may represent an additional pathway for increasing tumor cell energy production by inhibiting AMPK to decrease mitochondrial degradation.

In models of infectious diseases such as gram-negative endotoxemia or leishmaniasis, MIF functions as an inflammatory cytokine that promotes leukocyte activity.13,81,82 In medulloblastoma, MIF secreted by tumor cells did not directly promote T lymphocyte migration to the TME.69 However, MIF caused endothelial cells to secrete regulated upon activation, normal T-cell expressed, and secreted (RANTES) to attract T lymphocytes. Tumor-infiltrating T lymphocytes have been observed to have either pro- or anti-tumorigenic effects depending on their subtype, such as CD8+ or regulatory T lymphocytes. This MIF-mediated mechanism may represent one method for recruiting immunosuppressive leukocytes to the medulloblastoma TME. In the glioblastoma TME, MIF impairs leukocyte activity against tumor cells. Glioma cells secrete MIF, which binds to microglial CD74 to decrease interferon gamma release.83 This change inhibits anti-tumor macrophage polarization and contributes to an immunosuppressive TME. MIF additionally downregulates natural killer group 2 member D receptor (NKG2D) on both NK cells and CD8+ T lymphocytes to reduce their tumoricidal activity.84 Glioblastoma stem cells secrete MIF to activate CXCR2, prompting MDSCs to inhibit CD8+ T lymphocytes.74

CD8+ T lymphocyte inhibition may also occur through additional pathways, especially during the transformation from low- to high-grade glioma. In a murine model, the transition from low- to high-grade glioma was associated with decreasing CD8+ T lymphocyte infiltration, and both high- and low-grade glioma had increased protein expression of MIF and CD74 compared to nontumorous regions.29 Low-grade glioma macrophages had higher levels of CD74 protein expression, while high-grade glioma had increased cell surface expression of immunosuppressive galactin-3 and CD9. In human tissue, single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the MIF gene alter infiltration of CD8+ T lymphocyte, as well as that of other leukocytes, into the TME.85 In an in vitro murine model of neuroblastoma, a peripheral nervous system tumor, MIF overexpression resulted in overall (ie, CD3+) T lymphocyte overactivation and subsequent activation-induced apoptosis.86 This mechanism remains to be investigated in primary CNS tumors; however, it is possible that locally elevated levels of MIF in the TME may directly induce CD8+ T lymphocyte apoptosis. MIF also leads to impaired dendritic cell maturation and function, limiting immune surveillance in the glioblastoma TME.87 However, MIF retains some of its chemoattractive properties and promotes the recruitment of mast cells, which decrease glioblastoma cell proliferation by inhibiting STAT3.88,89 Greater mast cell levels have been associated with longer overall survival in patients with glioblastoma.90 It is likely that each immune cell type has a distinct role in the glioblastoma TME, which may be different in other primary CNS tumors. Further research on the diverse roles of tumor-infiltrating leukocytes can elucidate their contributions to the TME and impact on primary CNS tumor behavior.

The effects of MIF on glioblastoma development and progression extend to its prognostic utility. High MIF levels predict significantly reduced overall survival.91 In light of the diversity of MIF-mediated signaling pathways, this association is strengthened when coupled with increased CD74 expression by MDSCs,39 which have been identified as a significant contributor to the immunosuppressive TME in glioblastoma. MDSCs reduce T lymphocyte tumoricidal activity, increase immunosuppressive macrophage and regulatory T (Treg) lymphocyte counts, and decrease NK cell tumor cytotoxicity.92 The resulting immunosuppressive TME promotes glioblastoma progression and contributes to treatment resistance. Conversely, in craniopharyngioma, increased MIF protein levels have been associated with decreased tumor recurrence.93 However, there is limited information on the biological mechanisms underlying this observation. Importantly, craniopharyngioma represents a distinct disease from glioblastoma, which may explain these discordant findings. Craniopharyngioma is a benign tumor of embryonic origin located in the sellar and parasellar regions that affects both pediatric and adult patients.94 In contrast, glioblastoma is a malignant, cerebral tumor of neural and glial origin, with the highest incidence in older adults.95

It is critical to elucidate the mechanisms driving TME immunosuppression in primary CNS tumors, with the aim of targeting these processes and improving patient prognosis. Differential expression patterns of CD74 and CXCR2 by MDSCs within and outside the glioblastoma TME further emphasize that MIF signaling is location-specific. These differences can inform drug development to target TME-associated MDSCs and reduce their immunosuppressive signaling pathways. However, genetic differences introduce further variability in targeting MIF signaling. Certain genetic polymorphisms have been linked to greater CD8+ T lymphocyte infiltration in the glioblastoma TME, but significant associations with overall survival have not been demonstrated.85 In meningioma, tumor cell of chromosome monosomy 22 has been associated with decreased MIF gene expression and increased leukocytic tumor infiltration.96 Chromosome 22 is monosomic in meningioma and contains the neurofibromin 2 (NF2) gene, as well as the MIF gene. Epigenetic modifications may further regulate MIF gene expression and its function. Histone deacetylases and noncoding ribonucleic acids (ncRNAs) regulating the MIF gene have been implicated in gastrointestinal cancer initiation and progression.97 These features demonstrate the various genetic and epigenetic factors that can impact MIF gene expression and subsequent tumor behavior. Further research is needed to evaluate the potential role of genetic and epigenetic MIF regulation in primary CNS tumors.

In primary CNS tumors, MIF is implicated in several cancer hallmarks, including resisting cell death, sustaining proliferative signaling, accessing vasculature, and avoiding immune destruction.98,99 A potential role in further hallmarks and their relationships to MIF remains to be studied, including deregulated cellular metabolism. Given the importance of MIF in driving many tumor-accelerating phenotypes, MIF represents a promising therapeutic target for primary CNS tumors. Specifically, the identification of strategies that impact multiple pro-cancer phenotypes regulated by MIF could result in a more effective therapeutic response. Given the current data in glioblastoma suggesting a tumor cell-extrinsic function for MIF, it is likely that targeting MIF may be more successful by impacting the TME (immune suppression, angiogenesis) rather than the tumor cells themselves, and this should be explored alone and in combination with known immune modulators and antiangiogenic agents.

MIF As a Therapeutic Target in Primary CNS Tumors

Targeting MIF has been an efficacious strategy in a variety of preclinical models of cancerous and noncancerous diseases.100,101 These compounds act through various mechanisms, including decreasing MIF assembly from its protein subunits, blocking MIF from binding to its target transmembrane receptors, and reducing MIF intracellular activity. These drugs are currently being, or have the potential to be, translated to treat primary CNS tumors. There is activity both in preclinical models and early-phase clinical trials.

N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone (NAPQI) is a metabolite of acetaminophen that covalently binds to the MIF tautomerase site (ie, orthosteric) (Table 1).102 This modification impairs MIF binding to extracellular receptors and its subsequent signaling activity. These mechanistic effects were observed in vitro with clinical doses of acetaminophen. This approach demonstrated the efficacy of targeting MIF through its tautomerase site, which has limited physiological catalytic activity but important effects on cell signaling. This mechanism has been also identified for plant-derived metabolites oxidized (-)-epicatechin-quinone (oxEC)103 and sulforaphane.104 Sulforaphane administration induced apoptosis in immunosuppressive MDSCs and several glioblastoma cell lines in vitro,105–107 and a similar effect has been observed in medulloblastoma108 and vestibular schwannoma.109 In vivo studies found that sulforaphane decreased tumor volume growth in murine models of vestibular schwannoma and glioblastoma.109,110 Perhaps more importantly, these findings informed the search for synthetic compounds. (S,R)-3-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-isoxazole acetic acid methyl ester (ISO-1) was first synthesized as a reversible, competitive inhibitor of the MIF tautomerase site.111 ISO-1 demonstrated dose-dependent effects on arachidonic acid secretion, dexamethasone regulation, and glioblastoma cell proliferation.112,113 Specifically, ISO-1 reduced in vitro glioblastoma cell growth and increased CD74 protein expression. It also decreased tumor growth in vivo while reducing the number of immunosuppressive macrophages in the TME.114 Analogues of ISO-1 have been developed in an effort to further refine the efficacy of this drug class. 3-(2ʹ-methylphenyl)-isocoumarin (SCD-19), CPSI-1306, CPSI-2705, and ISO-66 have been tested in preclinical models of bladder, colorectal, lung, and skin cancer,115–117 whereas 3-(3-hydroxybenzyl)-5-methylbenzooxazol-2-one (Debio1036) and OXIM-11 have been investigated in non-oncological diseases such as arthritis and sepsis.118–121

Table 1. A Summary of MIF-Directed Treatments and Their Preclinical Efficacy Against Primary CNS Tumors

Mechanism of Action	Name	Reported Efficacy Against Primary CNS Tumors	Development Status Against Primary CNS Tumors	
Small-molecule inhibitors: orthosteric inhibitors (ie, binding to the MIF tautomerase site)	2-OPB	Not reported	Not tested	
4-IPP	Glioblastoma
In vitro (murine)126	Preclinical	
CPSI-1306	Not reported	Not tested	
CPSI-2705	Not reported	Not tested	
Debio1036/MIF098	Not reported	Not tested	
ISO-1	Glioblastoma
In vivo (murine)114	Preclinical	
ISO-66	Not reported	Not tested	
NAPQI	Glioblastoma
In vitro102	Preclinical	
oxEC	Not reported	Not tested	
OXIM-11	Not reported	Not tested	
SCD-19	Not reported	Not tested	
Sulforaphane	Glioblastoma
In vivo (murine)109,110
Medulloblastoma
In vitro108
Vestibular schwannoma
In vivo (murine)109	Preclinical	
Small molecule inhibitors: allosteric inhibitors	Iguratimod	Glioblastoma
In vivo (murine)159	Preclinical	
p425	Not reported	Not tested	
L2-4048 (chimeric molecule of ibudilast and p425)	Not reported	Not tested	
Small-molecule inhibitor: MIF destabilization (ie, trimer formation disruption, chaperone loss-mediated degradation)	Ebselen	Glioblastoma
In vitro162,163
Vestibular schwannoma
In vitro164	Preclinical	
Tanespimycin	Glioblastoma
In vitro167,168	Preclinical	
Peptide drugs: ligand–receptor binding with CD74	C36L1	Not reported	Not tested	
DRα1-MOG-35–55	Not reported	Not tested	
RTL1000	Not reported	Not tested	
Peptide drugs: ligand–receptor binding with CXCR2	MIF-(40-49)	Not reported	Not tested	
MIF-(47-56)	Not reported	Not tested	
Monoclonal antibody: anti-MIF monoclonal antibodies	BaxB01	Not reported	Not tested	
BaxG03	Not reported	Not tested	
BaxM159	Not reported	Not tested	
Imalumab	Not reported	Not tested	
ON104	Not reported	Not tested	
ON203	Not reported	Not tested	
Monoclonal antibody: anti-CD74 monoclonal antibody	Milatuzumab	Not reported	Not tested	

2-oxo-4-phenyl-3-butanoate (2-OPB) is a synthetic compound that covalently binds to the MIF tautomerase site, resulting in irreversible MIF inhibition.122 Although this compound has not been tested in any disease models, this mechanism has been identified for other compounds, namely 4-iodo-6-phenylpyrimidine (4-IPP).123 4-IPP has a similar efficacy to ISO-1, but the potency of 4-IPP is approximately 10 times greater based on kinetic studies, enabling a comparable effect at a much lower dose. 4-IPP impairs MIF both intra- and extracellularly.124,125 Intracellularly, 4-IPP prevents MIF from binding to chaperone protein p115, which decreases MIF secretion. Extracellularly, 4-IPP blocks MIF from binding to CD74, which reduces the downstream signaling activity of MIF through this transmembrane receptor. In a murine flank model of glioblastoma, 4-IPP increased cancer stem cell apoptosis and reduced post-radiation therapy mesenchymal transdifferentiation.126 However, these effects are difficult to ascribe directly to MIF, as 4-IPP also inhibits the MIF homologue D-dopachrome tautomerase.127 Nevertheless, the demonstrated efficacy of 4-IPP warrants further investigation. More broadly, many orthosteric MIF inhibitors have not been tested in primary CNS tumor models. These compounds represent potential new treatments for primary CNS tumors, as well as scaffolds for the development of refined analogues with improved efficacy and potency and decreased toxicity.

Ibudilast is a small-molecule inhibitor of MIF and several phosphodiesterases, primarily types 1–4.128–130 Specifically, ibudilast binds adjacent to the MIF tautomerase site, resulting in allosteric inhibition. First approved in Japan to treat asthma, its indications have been expanded to post-stroke dizziness and allergic conjunctivitis.131–133 Ibudilast crosses the blood-brain barrier (BBB), making it a promising treatment for neurological diseases.134 In multiple sclerosis, a randomized Phase 2 trial found no significant benefit for reducing active lesion formation.135 However, a more recent Phase 2 trial found ibudilast to be associated with a significantly slower rate of brain atrophy.136 In amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, 2 early-phase trials evaluated its safety and tolerability in this patient population.137,138 These findings have informed the design of an ongoing Phase 2/3 trial studying the effects of ibudilast on patient functional status and survival.139 Ibudilast has been also studied in glioblastoma, where it increased CD8+ T lymphocyte frequency in the TME, but not in nontumorous brain tissue or peripheral blood, in a murine model.39 In a separate preclinical study, ibudilast combined with temozolomide increased tumor cell death in vitro and prolonged overall survival in vivo.140 Based on these results, ibudilast is currently being investigated in combination with temozolomide in a Phase 1/2 trial for newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma (Table 2).141

Table 2. A Summary of MIF-Directed Treatments and Their Clinical Trial Status

Mechanism of Action	Name	Reported Efficacy Against Primary CNS Tumors	Development Status Against Primary CNS Tumors	
Small-molecule inhibitors: allosteric inhibitors	Ibudilast	Glioblastoma
In vivo (murine)140	Phase 1/2 clinical trial (ongoing)	

Chicago Sky Blue 6B (p425) is a dye identified in a screen for allosteric MIF inhibitors.142 p425 binds 2 separate MIF proteins, occupying their tautomerase sites to inhibit their interactions with CD74. p425 is also thought to reduce the proinflammatory effects of MIF by impacting additional functional regions beyond its tautomerase site, such as its thiol-protein oxidoreductase site. Although not studied in primary CNS tumors, p425 decreased colorectal carcinoma cell migration in vitro, and MIF administration increased cancer metastasis in vivo.143 L2-4048 is a chimeric molecule composed of ibudilast and the tautomerase site-binding segment of p425.144 Initial mechanistic evaluation supports improved activity against MIF due to both its inhibition of the MIF tautomerase site and its promotion of MIF-MIF binding, which sequesters MIF from binding to its targets. L2-4048 also addresses the large size of p425 while maintaining its functional portion. Chimeric compounds may represent the next generation of MIF targeted therapies; however, these compounds remain to be studied in preclinical models of primary CNS tumors.

Iguratimod is an additional allosteric small-molecule inhibitor of MIF.145 Initially developed as an anti-inflammatory agent, it was found to have a distinct mechanism of action compared to classical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).146–149 In addition to reducing cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) activity,150 iguratimod reduces NF-κB activation,151,152 IL-17-mediated proinflammatory pathway activity,153 B-lymphocyte cytokine synthesis,154 and MIF signaling activity.155,156 Iguratimod has been approved as a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for rheumatoid arthritis in China157 and Japan.158 However, iguratimod has been studied in other diseases, such as glioblastoma. Iguratimod-loaded nanoparticles significantly decreased tumor cell proliferation in vitro and tumor volume in vivo in a flank murine model of glioblastoma.159 Although these results are promising as a single-agent treatment, the efficacy of iguratimod may be improved by combining it with other drug classes, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors based on the principle that iguratimod can reduce local immune suppression which could then enhance the efficacy of immune activating approaches. In a murine model of lung cancer, combined treatment with iguratimod-loaded nanoparticles and programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1)-expressing nanovesicles decreased lung cancer cell proliferation and migration in vitro and tumor volume in vivo.160 Synergistic combinations of iguratimod require investigation against primary CNS tumors to determine their possible translation to clinical trials. Additionally, the design of clinical trials investigating combination therapies can greatly benefit from a rational drug selection strategy. Selecting medications that act through distinct mechanisms can collectively target multiple oncogenic pathways in parallel, promoting drug synergy. Synergistic drug combinations can reduce the required amount of each medication, which can possibly address issues of single-agent drug toxicity. Drug repurposing is also a promising strategy. The evaluation of medications currently used in clinical practice, either in the United States or abroad, can provide a large amount of pharmacokinetic data that can inform clinical trial design. For iguratimod, its international use for over a decade offers significant information on its safety and efficacy, and the addition of the anti-PD1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapy for select solid tumors, may further accelerate clinical trial initiation for patients with primary CNS tumors.

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor is a homotrimer, making its oligomerization an additional target. Ebselen is a synthetic, selenium-based antioxidant that is also a trimer-disrupting inhibitor of MIF.161 Ebselen has been found to induce the dissociation of MIF into its monomers, which disrupts the tautomerase site found within the MIF trimer. Ebselen has been observed to promote in vitro glioblastoma cell apoptosis and decrease migration, as well as to decrease inflammatory cytokine secretion.162,163 Conversely, a cell line of vestibular schwannoma was modified to increase intracellular reactive oxygen species, resulting in increased apoptosis, and ebselen treatment rescued tumor cells from apoptosis.164 These contrasting results—that is, ebselen administration increasing glioblastoma cell apoptosis but decreasing vestibular schwannoma apoptosis—likely stem from the multimechanistic effects of ebselen as an antioxidant and MIF trimer disruptor. In addition to targeting MIF oligomerization, there have been medications tested that inhibit chaperone proteins from protecting MIF against degradation. Tanespimycin (17AAG) is an antibiotic-derived compound that inhibits heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) from functioning as a MIF chaperone protein, resulting in increased MIF degradation.165,166 Tanespimycin administration has been found to increase glioblastoma cell apoptosis in vitro.167,168 Modifications such as micelle nanocarrier delivery demonstrated even higher efficacy and potency.169 However, acquired resistance has been observed, which may require next-generation analogues or synergistic combination treatments to overcome this challenging adaptation by glioblastoma cells.170–174 Additionally, targeting HSP90 may invoke many off-site effects due to its widespread effects on the function of numerous kinases, steroid receptors, and transcription factors.175 Overall, MIF trimer destabilization is an additional avenue for reducing MIF activity by targeting MIF availability upstream of ligand–receptor interactions. This class of MIF inhibitors requires further preclinical investigation, both as a single agent and in combination with existing treatments to evaluate drug synergy.

In addition to small-molecule inhibitors, protein-based treatments have been developed against MIF, including protein subunits (ie, peptides) and monoclonal antibodies. DRα1-MOG-35–55 is a human leukocyte antigen-DR (HLA-DR)-derived peptide that binds CD74 and prevents its interaction with MIF.176 This function was able to reduce MIF signaling in a murine model of multiple sclerosis. Similarly, recombinant T-cell receptor ligand-1000 (RTL1000) is an HLA-DR-derived peptide that binds CD74.177 RTL1000 has been studied in a Phase 1 clinical trial for multiple sclerosis, demonstrating favorable safety and tolerability.178 These results may inform preclinical and clinical studies in primary CNS tumors. C36 VL immunoglobulin complementary determining region-1 (C36L1) is a peptide developed to investigate adjuvant immune system stimulation against various cancer types.179 C36L1 demonstrated promising efficacy against human and murine melanoma in vitro. Specifically, C36L1 binds to CD74 to inhibit MIF signaling, which promotes the anti-tumorigenic activity of dendritic cells, macrophages, and T lymphocytes while reducing the immunosuppressive activity of regulatory T cells and MDSCs in the TME.180 These findings have the potential to be translated to primary CNS tumors. Beyond CD74, peptide inhibitors have been developed to target additional extracellular protein domains that normally interact with MIF. Both MIF-(40-49) and MIF-(47-56) are peptides that block the interaction between the MIF N-like loop and the CXCR2 receptor N domain, exoloop EL1, and exoloop EL2 in an in vitro model of atherosclerosis.181 Increased CXCR2 activation has been associated with the progression of several cancer types, including breast, lung, and pancreatic cancer.182–184 This pathway, and its inhibition with peptide therapies, requires further investigation in primary CNS tumors.

Several monoclonal antibodies have been developed against MIF. BaxB01, BaxG03, and BaxM159 have demonstrated increased prostate cancer cell apoptosis in vitro by inhibiting ERK1/2 signaling, resulting in decreased tumor growth in vivo in a xenograft murine model.185,186 Imalumab (Bax69) has been studied in a Phase 1 clinical trial that found promising efficacy against solid tumors such as colorectal carcinoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, and ovarian cancer, with one-third of patients overall exhibiting stable disease.187 Of note, patients with primary or metastatic brain tumors were excluded from this trial, which prevented the investigation of the efficacy of imalumab within the CNS. Imalumab has also informed the development of second-generation monoclonal antibodies. ON203 demonstrated a prolonged half-life and improved pharmacokinetic profile compared to imalumab in a xenograft murine model of prostate cancer.188 ON104 has been tested in a murine model of rheumatoid arthritis, but its efficacy against tumors in the CNS remains unknown.189 Milatuzumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds CD74 to inhibit its interaction with MIF.190 Preclinical studies demonstrated antitumoral efficacy in animal models of hematological cancers.190,191 These studies have been followed by several early-phase clinical trials, leading to its orphan approval for multiple myeloma and B cell malignancies.192–195 Overall, with their documented safety and tolerability, monoclonal antibodies represent additional anti-MIF therapies that may be repurposed against primary CNS tumors such as glioblastoma. Alternatively, their sequences may be modified to generate future-generation antibodies, or their segments may be explored to develop nanobody therapies.196 Future research must also consider BBB penetrance, which remains a significant challenge for protein-based treatments.

As discussed above, there have been many MIF-targeting strategies developed that are at various stages in preclinical testing and clinical evaluation, some of which are in primary CNS tumors. While many of the treatments described above (including small molecule inhibitors, chimeric compounds, peptide inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, and nanobodies) have been developed for both cancerous and noncancerous diseases, the treatment of primary CNS tumors presents several major challenges to drug development. Foremost is the ability for a given therapy to reach brain tissue in sufficient concentrations to induce a meaningful effect, if the intended mechanism of action is modulating MIF locally in the brain. Crossing the BBB and blood-tumor barrier remains a challenge for many therapeutic strategies, including small molecules and antibodies. That is, while the BBB and blood-tumor barrier can be regionally leaky, the ability to achieve high concentrations in the brain is challenging. Therefore, prioritizing brain penetrant inhibitors (such as ibudilast and those that have been developed for and tested in neurological disorders like multiple sclerosis) for preclinical investigation will likely maximize the chances of success in early-phase clinical trials. The second challenge for the use of MIF-targeting agents in primary CNS tumors is mitigating neurological off-target effects to reduce toxicity. Neurological side effects may be idiosyncratic and challenging to predict, representing a major challenge in CNS drug development. While these effects can be somewhat mitigated through an in-depth understanding of MIF signaling in multiple neural cell types as controls during early-phase therapeutic development efforts, global neurological effects, and particularly the effects when MIF-targeting is combined with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, may only be uncovered through human or primate studies. Therefore, MIF targeting and dosing strategies that have accounted for neural function should also be prioritized.

Conclusions and Future Perspectives

Foundational studies have demonstrated that high levels of MIF have been associated with a poor prognosis in several primary CNS tumors. MIF has been shown to contribute to tumor initiation and progression by decreasing cell apoptosis, increasing angiogenesis, driving cell migration, and promoting immunosuppression. As MIF is an inflammatory cytokine that has diverse, tissue-specific functions, its function across primary CNS tumors is likely to also show some diversity, necessitating a careful assessment of both MIF expression and function in each tumor type. When possible, careful assessment of MIF and its known receptors in human samples should be integrated with cell responses and preclinical models to lay the groundwork for translational studies that could use both patient samples and assessment of MIF-targeting strategies in preclinical models. Importantly, there are numerous treatments available against MIF, including small-molecule inhibitors, peptide inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies. While many of these treatments have been developed in tumor models, they remain to be studied in many primary CNS tumor types. Continued evaluation of these therapies in preclinical and clinical studies must consider several key tumor-specific considerations, including BBB penetrance and the impact on both the TME (including immune cells) and normal neural cells. Once benchmarking studies have been performed in preclinical models as single agents, follow-up assessments of combination approaches including standard of care (radiation, chemotherapy), as well as immune therapies and antiangiogenic approaches, are likely to help provide guidance for the next set of early-phase clinical trials for CNS tumors. In addition, integration of genetic and epigenetic data may identify patients with polymorphisms most likely to respond to anti-MIF treatments, highlighting the possible impact of pharmacogenomics on treatment selection. Ultimately, MIF represents a promising therapeutic target in neuro-oncology and has the potential to inform the development of new therapies for patients with both primary and metastatic CNS tumors.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Amanda Mendelsohn (Center of Medical Art and Photography, Cleveland Clinic) for assistance with figure preparation and Dr. Erin Mulkearns-Hubert for editorial assistance. Finally, we thank Dr. Reza Khatib for his inspiration and support.

Funding

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grants (F30 CA250254 to A.L., P01 CA245705 to J.D.L., R01 NS127984 to P.R., R35 NS127083 to J.D.L., R01 NS127824 to P.C., R01 NS124594 to P.C.); Department of Defense Career Development award (W81XWH-21-1-0380 to P.C.); American Brain Tumor Association (to J.J., J.D.L., J.L.); Case Comprehensive Cancer Center (to J.J., J.D.L.); Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute (to J.D.L., J.L.).

Conflict of interest statement

R.B. serves on the clinical advisory board for OncoOne and is an inventor on Yale managed patents for therapeutic MIF antagonists. M.A.V. reports institutional clinical trial contracts with Infuseon, Oncosynergy, and DeNovo; Honoraria from Biodexa, Servier; and being named as a coinventor on pending and issued patents held by the Cleveland Clinic and Moffitt Cancer Center relating to cancer therapies, but these are not directly relevant to this review. J.D.L. reports being named as a coinventor on pending and issued patents held by the Cleveland Clinic relating to cancer therapies, but these are not directly relevant to this review.
==== Refs
References

1. Ostrom QT , PriceM, NeffC, et al . CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2016–2020. Neuro Oncol. 2023;25 (Suppl_4 ):iv1–iv99.37793125
2. Marenco-Hillembrand L , WijesekeraO, Suarez-MeadeP, et al . Trends in glioblastoma: outcomes over time and type of intervention: a systematic evidence based analysis. J Neurooncol. 2020;147 (2 ):297–307.32157552
3. Lauko A , LoA, AhluwaliaMS, LathiaJD. Cancer cell heterogeneity & plasticity in glioblastoma and brain tumors. Semin Cancer Biol. 2022;82 (July ):162–175.33640445
4. Budarf M , McDonaldT, SellingerB, et al . Localization of the human gene for macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) to chromosome 22q11.2. Genomics. 1997;39 (2 ):235–236.9027512
5. Esumi N , BudarfM, CiccarelliL, et al . Conserved gene structure and genomic linkage for D-dopachrome tautomerase (DDT) and MIF. Mamm Genome. 1998;9 (9 ):753–757.9716662
6. Rocklin RE , MacDermottRP, ChessL, SchlossmanSF, DavidJR. Studies on mediator production by highly purified human T and B lymphocytes. J Exp Med. 1974;140 (5 ):1303–1316.4608321
7. Bernhagen J , CalandraT, MitchellRA, et al . MIF is a pituitary-derived cytokine that potentiates lethal endotoxaemia. Nature. 1993;365 (6448 ):756–759.8413654
8. Nishihira J , KoyamaY, MizueY. Identification of macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) in human vascular enothelial cells and its induction by lipopolysaccharide. Cytokine. 1998;10 (3 ):199–205.9576065
9. Skurk T , HerderC, KräftI, et al . Production and release of macrophage migration inhibitory factor from human adipocytes. Endocrinology. 2005;146 (3 ):1006–1011.15576462
10. Martiney JA , SherryB, MetzCN, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor release by macrophages after ingestion of Plasmodium Chabaudi-infected erythrocytes: possible role in the pathogenesis of malarial anemia. Infect Immun. 2000;68 (4 ):2259–2267.10722628
11. Nobre CCG , de AraújoJMG, FernandesTAA de M, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF): biological activities and relation with cancer. Pathol Oncol Res. 2017;23 (2 ):235–244.27771887
12. Jankauskas SS , WongDWL, BucalaR, DjudjajS, BoorP. Evolving complexity of MIF signaling. Cell Signal. 2019;57 (May ):76–88.30682543
13. Calandra T , BernhagenJ, MetzCN, et al . MIF as a glucocorticoid-induced modulator of cytokine production. Nature. 1995;377 (6544 ):68–71.7659164
14. Leng L , WangW, RogerT, et al . Glucocorticoid-induced MIF expression by human CEM T cells. Cytokine. 2009;48 (3 ):177–185.19646897
15. Daun JM , CannonJG. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor antagonizes hydrocortisone-induced increases in cytosolic IκBα. Am J Physiol-Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2000;279 (3 ):R1043–R1049.10956264
16. Calandra T , BucalaR. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF): a glucocorticoid counter-regulator within the immune system. Crit Rev Immunol. 2017;37 (2-6 ):359–370.29773026
17. Roger T , ChansonA, Knaup-ReymondM, CalandraT. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor promotes innate immune responses by suppressing glucocorticoid-induced expression of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1. Eur J Immunol. 2005;35 (12 ):3405–3413.16224818
18. Hackett RJ , DavisLS, LipskyPE. Comparative effects of tumor necrosis factor-alpha and IL-1 beta on mitogen-induced T cell activation. J Immunol. 1988;140 (8 ):2639–2644.2965728
19. Bacher M , MetzCN, CalandraT, et al . An essential regulatory role for macrophage migration inhibitory factor in T-cell activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93 (15 ):7849–7854.8755565
20. Kang I , BucalaR. The immunobiology of MIF: function, genetics and prospects for precision medicine. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2019;15 (7 ):427–437.31197253
21. Rosengren E , BucalaR, AmanP, et al . The immunoregulatory mediator macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) catalyzes a tautomerization reaction. Mol Med Camb Mass. 1996;2 (1 ):143–149.8900542
22. Rosengren E , ÅmanP, ThelinS, et al . The macrophage migration inhibitory factor MIF is a phenylpyruvate tautomerase. FEBS Lett. 1997;417 (1 ):85–88.9395080
23. Fingerle-Rowson G , KaleswarapuDR, SchlanderC, et al . A tautomerase-null macrophage Migration-Inhibitory Factor (MIF) gene knock-in mouse model reveals that protein interactions and not enzymatic activity mediate MIF-dependent growth regulation. Mol Cell Biol. 2009;29 (7 ):1922–1932.19188446
24. Leng L , MetzCN, FangY, et al . MIF signal transduction initiated by binding to CD74. J Exp Med. 2003;197 (11 ):1467–1476.12782713
25. Su H , NaN, ZhangX, ZhaoY. The biological function and significance of CD74 in immune diseases. Inflamm Res. 2017;66 (3 ):209–216.27752708
26. Gore Y , StarletsD, MaharshakN, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor induces B cell survival by activation of a CD74-CD44 receptor complex. J Biol Chem. 2008;283 (5 ):2784–2792.18056708
27. Wang H , ZhangQ, ZhangJ, et al . CD74 regulates cellularity and maturation of medullary thymic epithelial cells partially by activating the canonical NF-κB signaling pathway. FASEB J. 2021;35 (5 ):e21535.
28. Kitange GJ , CarlsonBL, SchroederMA, et al . Expression of CD74 in high grade gliomas: a potential role in temozolomide resistance. J Neurooncol. 2010;100 (2 ):177–186.20443131
29. Rajendran S , HuY, CanellaA, et al . Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals immunosuppressive myeloid cell diversity during malignant progression in a murine model of glioma. Cell Rep. 2023;42 (3 ):112197.36871221
30. Shi X , LengL, WangT, et al . CD44 is the signaling component of the macrophage migration inhibitory factor-CD74 receptor complex. Immunity. 2006;25 (4 ):595–606.17045821
31. Yoo SA , LengL, KimBJ, et al . MIF allele-dependent regulation of the MIF coreceptor CD44 and role in rheumatoid arthritis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113 (49 ):E7917–E7926.27872288
32. Sawatzky DA , WilloughbyDA, Colville-NashPR, RossiAG. The involvement of the apoptosis-modulating proteins ERK 1/2, Bcl-xL and Bax in the resolution of acute inflammation in vivo. Am J Pathol. 2006;168 (1 ):33–41.16400007
33. Lan H , WangN, ChenY, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) promotes rat airway muscle cell proliferation and migration mediated by ERK1/2 and FAK signaling. Cell Biol Int. 2018;42 (1 ):75–83.28851074
34. Chen CA , ChangJM, YangYL, ChangEE, ChenHC. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor regulates integrin-β1 and cyclin D1 expression via ERK pathway in podocytes. Biomed Pharmacother. 2020;124 (April ):109892.31986415
35. Amin MA , HaasCS, ZhuK, et al . Migration inhibitory factor up-regulates vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 via Src, PI3 kinase, and NFkappaB. Blood. 2006;107 (6 ):2252–2261.16317091
36. Xu X , WangB, YeC, et al . Overexpression of macrophage migration inhibitory factor induces angiogenesis in human breast cancer. Cancer Lett. 2008;261 (2 ):147–157.18171602
37. Veillat V , CarliC, MetzCN, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor elicits an angiogenic phenotype in human ectopic endometrial cells and triggers the production of major angiogenic factors via CD44, CD74, and MAPK signaling pathways. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95 (12 ):E403–E412.20829186
38. Ives A , Le RoyD, ThéroudeC, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor promotes the migration of dendritic cells through CD74 and the activation of the Src/PI3K/myosin II pathway. FASEB J. 2021;35 (5 ):e21418.33774873
39. Alban TJ , BayikD, OtvosB, et al . Glioblastoma myeloid-derived suppressor cell subsets express differential macrophage migration inhibitory factor receptor profiles that can be targeted to reduce immune suppression. Front Immunol. 2020;11 (June ):1191.32625208
40. Miller EJ , LiJ, LengL, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor stimulates AMP-activated protein kinase in the ischaemic heart. Nature. 2008;451 (7178 ):578–582.18235500
41. Bergeron R , RenJM, CadmanKS, et al . Chronic activation of AMP kinase results in NRF-1 activation and mitochondrial biogenesis. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001;281 (6 ):E1340–E1346.11701451
42. Trefts E , ShawRJ. AMPK: restoring metabolic homeostasis over space and time. Mol Cell. 2021;81 (18 ):3677–3690.34547233
43. Bernhagen J , KrohnR, LueH, et al . MIF is a noncognate ligand of CXC chemokine receptors in inflammatory and atherogenic cell recruitment. Nat Med. 2007;13 (5 ):587–596.17435771
44. Bloom BR , BennettB. Mechanism of a reaction in vitro associated with delayed-type hypersensitivity. Science. 1966;153 (3731 ):80–82.5938421
45. David JR. Delayed hypersensitivity in vitro: its mediation by cell-free substances formed by lymphoid cell-antigen interaction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1966;56 (1 ):72–77.5229858
46. Wen L , MoserM, LeyK. Molecular mechanisms of leukocyte β2 integrin activation. Blood. 2022;139 (24 ):3480–3492.35167661
47. Pawig L , KlasenC, WeberC, BernhagenJ, NoelsH. Diversity and inter-connections in the cxcr4 chemokine receptor/ligand family: molecular perspectives. Front Immunol. 2015;6 (August ):429.26347749
48. Schwartz V , LueH, KraemerS, et al . A functional heteromeric MIF receptor formed by CD74 and CXCR4. FEBS Lett. 2009;583 (17 ):2749–2757.19665027
49. Chatterjee M , BorstO, WalkerB, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor limits activation-induced apoptosis of platelets via CXCR7-dependent akt signaling. Circ Res. 2014;115 (11 ):939–949.25266363
50. Klasen C , OhlK, SternkopfM, et al . MIF promotes B cell chemotaxis through the receptors CXCR4 and CD74 and ZAP-70 signaling. J Immunol. 2014;192 (11 ):5273–5284.24760155
51. Alampour-Rajabi S , El BounkariO, RotA, et al . MIF interacts with CXCR7 to promote receptor internalization, ERK1/2 and ZAP-70 signaling, and lymphocyte chemotaxis. FASEB J. 2015;29 (11 ):4497–4511.26139098
52. Wang C , ChenW, ShenJ. CXCR7 targeting and its major disease relevance. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9 (June ):641.29977203
53. Ohta S , MisawaA, FukayaR, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) promotes cell survival and proliferation of neural stem/progenitor cells. J Cell Sci. 2012;125 (Pt 13 ):3210–3220.22454509
54. Zhang X , ChenL, WangY, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor promotes proliferation and neuronal differentiation of neural stem/precursor cells through Wnt/β-catenin signal pathway. Int J Biol Sci. 2013;9 (10 ):1108–1120.24339732
55. Ohta S , MisawaA, LefebvreV, et al . Sox6 up-regulation by macrophage migration inhibitory factor promotes survival and maintenance of mouse neural stem/progenitor cells. PLoS One. 2013;8 (9 ):e74315.24066135
56. Ohta S , YaguchiT, OkunoH, et al . CHD7 promotes proliferation of neural stem cells mediated by MIF. Mol Brain. 2016;9 (1 ):96.27955690
57. Morimoto Y , TokumitsuA, SoneT, et al . TPT1 supports proliferation of neural stem/progenitor cells and brain tumor initiating cells regulated by macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF). Neurochem Res. 2022;47 (9 ):2741–2756.35622214
58. Fukaya R , OhtaS, YaguchiT, et al . MIF maintains the tumorigenic capacity of brain tumor–initiating cells by directly inhibiting p53. Cancer Res. 2016;76 (9 ):2813–2823.26980763
59. Kleemann R , HausserA, GeigerG, et al . Intracellular action of the cytokine MIF to modulate AP-1 activity and the cell cycle through Jab1. Nature. 2000;408 (6809 ):211–216.11089976
60. Burger-Kentischer A , FinkelmeierD, ThieleM, et al . Binding of JAB1/CSN5 to MIF is mediated by the MPN domain but is independent of the JAMM motif. FEBS Lett. 2005;579 (7 ):1693–1701.15757663
61. Lang T , LeeJPW, ElgassK, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor is required for NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Nat Commun. 2018;9 (1 ):2223.29884801
62. Israelson A , DitsworthD, SunS, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor as a chaperone inhibiting accumulation of misfolded SOD1. Neuron. 2015;86 (1 ):218–232.25801706
63. Onodera S , KanedaK, MizueY, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor up-regulates expression of matrix metalloproteinases in synovial fibroblasts of rheumatoid arthritis. J Biol Chem. 2000;275 (1 ):444–450.10617637
64. Huang Q , ZhaoSL, TianXY, LiB, LiZ. Increased co-expression of macrophage migration inhibitory factor and matrix metalloproteinase 9 is associated with tumor recurrence of meningioma. Int J Med Sci. 2013;10 (3 ):276–285.23372434
65. Guo X , XuS, GaoX, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor promotes vasculogenic mimicry formation induced by hypoxia via CXCR4/AKT/EMT pathway in human glioblastoma cells. Oncotarget. 2017;8 (46 ):80358–80372.29113309
66. Pyle M , KorbonitsM, GueorguievM, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor expression is increased in pituitary adenoma cell nuclei. J Endocrinol. 2003;176 (1 ):103–110.12525254
67. Lyu L , JiangY, MaW, et al . Single-cell sequencing of PIT1-positive pituitary adenoma highlights the pro-tumour microenvironment mediated by IFN-γ-induced tumour-associated fibroblasts remodelling. Br J Cancer. 2023;128 (6 ):1117–1133.36631635
68. Fan H , SongL, FanJ, et al . Decoding meningioma heterogeneity and neoplastic cell-macrophage interaction through single-cell transcriptome profiling across pathological grades. J Transl Med. 2023;21 (1 ):751.37880655
69. Salsman VS , ChowKKH, ShafferDR, et al . Crosstalk between medulloblastoma cells and endothelium triggers a strong chemotactic signal recruiting T lymphocytes to the tumor microenvironment. PLoS One. 2011;6 (5 ):e20267.21647415
70. Martelli C , IavaroneF, D’AngeloL, et al . Integrated proteomic platforms for the comparative characterization of medulloblastoma and pilocytic astrocytoma pediatric brain tumors: a preliminary study. Mol Biosyst. 2015;11 (6 ):1668–1683.25909245
71. Jiang Y , YangJ, LiangR, et al . Single-cell RNA sequencing highlights intratumor heterogeneity and intercellular network featured in adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma. Sci Adv. 2023;9 (15 ):eadc8933.37043580
72. Markert JM , FullerCM, GillespieGY, et al . Differential gene expression profiling in human brain tumors. Physiol Genomics. 2001;5 (1 ):21–33.11161003
73. Bacher M , SchraderJ, ThompsonN, et al . Up-regulation of macrophage migration inhibitory factor gene and protein expression in glial tumor cells during hypoxic and hypoglycemic stress indicates a critical role for angiogenesis in glioblastoma multiforme. Am J Pathol. 2003;162 (1 ):11–17.12507885
74. Otvos B , SilverDJ, Mulkearns-HubertEE, et al . Cancer stem cell-secreted macrophage migration inhibitory factor stimulates myeloid derived suppressor cell function and facilitates glioblastoma immune evasion. Stem Cells. 2016;34 (8 ):2026–2039.27145382
75. Schrader J , DeusterO, RinnB, et al . Restoration of contact inhibition in human glioblastoma cell lines after MIF knockdown. BMC Cancer. 2009;9 (1 ):464.20038293
76. Munaut C , BoniverJ, FoidartJ-M, DeprezM. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) expression in human glioblastomas correlates with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2002;28 (6 ):452–460.12445161
77. Castro BA , FlaniganP, JahangiriA, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor downregulation: a novel mechanism of resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy. Oncogene. 2017;36 (26 ):3749–3759.28218903
78. Brock SE , RendonBE, YaddanapudiK, MitchellRA. Negative regulation of AMP-activated Protein Kinase (AMPK) activity by macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) family members in non-small cell lung carcinomas. J Biol Chem. 2012;287 (45 ):37917–37925.22988252
79. Hoang-Minh LB , SiebzehnrublFA, YangC, et al . Infiltrative and drug-resistant slow-cycling cells support metabolic heterogeneity in glioblastoma. EMBO J. 2018;37 (23 ):e98772.30322894
80. Watson DC , BayikD, StorevikS, et al . GAP43-dependent mitochondria transfer from astrocytes enhances glioblastoma tumorigenicity. Nat Cancer. 2023;4 (5 ):648–664.37169842
81. Roger T , FroidevauxC, MartinC, CalandraT. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) regulates host responses to endotoxin through modulation of Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4). J Endotoxin Res. 2003;9 (2 ):119–123.12803886
82. Holowka T , CastilhoTM, GarciaAB, et al . Leishmania-encoded orthologs of macrophage migration inhibitory factor regulate host immunity to promote parasite persistence. FASEB J. 2016;30 (6 ):2249–2265.26956417
83. Ghoochani A , SchwarzMA, YakubovE, et al . MIF-CD74 signaling impedes microglial M1 polarization and facilitates brain tumorigenesis. Oncogene. 2016;35 (48 ):6246–6261.27157615
84. Mittelbronn M , PlattenM, ZeinerP, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) expression in human malignant gliomas contributes to immune escape and tumour progression. Acta Neuropathol (Berl). 2011;122 (3 ):353–365.21773885
85. Alban TJ , GrabowskiMM, OtvosB, et al . The MIF promoter SNP rs755622 is associated with immune activation in glioblastoma. JCI Insight. 2023;8 (13 ):e160024.37252795
86. Yan X , OrentasRJ, JohnsonBD. Tumor-derived macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) inhibits T lymphocyte activation. Cytokine. 2006;33 (4 ):188–198.16522371
87. Xu S , GuoX, GaoX, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor enhances autophagy by regulating ROCK1 activity and contributes to the escape of dendritic cell surveillance in glioblastoma. Int J Oncol. 2016;49 (5 ):2105–2115.27666391
88. Põlajeva J , BergströmT, EdqvistPH, et al . Glioma-derived macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) promotes mast cell recruitment in a STAT5-dependent manner. Mol Oncol. 2014;8 (1 ):50–58.24091309
89. Attarha S , RoyA, WestermarkB, TchougounovaE. Mast cells modulate proliferation, migration and stemness of glioma cells through downregulation of GSK3β expression and inhibition of STAT3 activation. Cell Signal. 2017;37 (September ):81–92.28600192
90. Chen R , WuW, LiuT, et al . Large-scale bulk RNA-seq analysis defines immune evasion mechanism related to mast cell in gliomas. Front Immunol. 2022;13 (September ):914001.36159780
91. Wang X , TianX, LiY, LiB, LiZ. Elevated expression of macrophage migration inhibitory factor correlates with tumor recurrence and poor prognosis of patients with gliomas. J Neurooncol. 2012;106 (1 ):43–51.21725855
92. Groth C , HuX, WeberR, et al . Immunosuppression mediated by myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) during tumour progression. Br J Cancer. 2019;120 (1 ):16–25.30413826
93. Lefranc F , ChevalierC, VinchonM, et al . Characterization of the levels of expression of retinoic acid receptors, galectin-3, macrophage migration inhibiting factor, and p53 in 51 adamantinomatous craniopharyngiomas. J Neurosurg. 2003;98 (1 ):145–153.12546363
94. Müller HL. The diagnosis and treatment of craniopharyngioma. Neuroendocrinology. 2020;110 (9-10 ):753–766.31678973
95. Ah-Pine F , KhettabM, BedouiY, et al . On the origin and development of glioblastoma: multifaceted role of perivascular mesenchymal stromal cells. Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2023;11 (1 ):104.37355636
96. Domingues PH , TeodósioC, OteroA, et al . Association between inflammatory infiltrates and isolated monosomy 22/del(22q) in meningiomas. PLoS One. 2013;8 (10 ):e74798.24098347
97. Osipyan A , ChenD, DekkerFJ. Epigenetic regulation in macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF)-mediated signaling in cancer and inflammation. Drug Discov Today. 2021;26 (7 ):1728–1734.33746067
98. Hanahan D. Hallmarks of cancer: new dimensions. Cancer Discov. 2022;12 (1 ):31–46.35022204
99. Mora Barthelmess R , StijlemansB, Van GinderachterJA. Hallmarks of cancer affected by the MIF cytokine family. Cancers. 2023;15 (2 ):395.36672343
100. Mangano K , MazzonE, BasileMS, et al . Pathogenic role for macrophage migration inhibitory factor in glioblastoma and its targeting with specific inhibitors as novel tailored therapeutic approach. Oncotarget. 2018;9 (25 ):17951–17970.29707160
101. Bilsborrow JB , DohertyE, TilstamPV, BucalaR. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) as a therapeutic target for rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2019;23 (9 ):733–744.31414920
102. Senter PD , Al-AbedY, MetzCN, et al . Inhibition of macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) tautomerase and biological activities by acetaminophen metabolites. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99 (1 ):144–149.11773615
103. Dickerhof N , MagonNJ, TyndallJDA, KettleAJ, HamptonMB. Potent inhibition of macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) by myeloperoxidase-dependent oxidation of epicatechins. Biochem J. 2014;462 (2 ):303–314.24916123
104. Healy ZR , LiuH, HoltzclawWD, TalalayP. Inactivation of tautomerase activity of macrophage migration inhibitory factor by sulforaphane: a potential biomarker for anti-inflammatory intervention. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20 (7 ):1516–1523.21602309
105. Karmakar S , WeinbergMS, BanikNL, PatelSJ, RaySK. Activation of multiple molecular mechanisms for apoptosis in human malignant glioblastoma T98G and U87MG cells treated with sulforaphane. Neuroscience. 2006;141 (3 ):1265–1280.16765523
106. Jiang H , ShangX, WuH, et al . Combination treatment with resveratrol and sulforaphane induces apoptosis in human U251 glioma cells. Neurochem Res. 2010;35 (1 ):152–161.19685289
107. Kumar R , de MooijT, PetersonTE, et al . Modulating glioma-mediated myeloid-derived suppressor cell development with sulforaphane. PLoS One. 2017;12 (6 ):e0179012.28666020
108. Gingras D , GendronM, BoivinD, et al . Induction of medulloblastoma cell apoptosis by sulforaphane, a dietary anticarcinogen from Brassica vegetables. Cancer Lett. 2004;203 (1 ):35–43.14670615
109. Kim BG , FujitaT, StankovicKM, et al . Sulforaphane, a natural component of broccoli, inhibits vestibular schwannoma growth in vitro and in vivo. Sci Rep. 2016;6 (1 ):36215.27805058
110. Bijangi-Vishehsaraei K , Reza SaadatzadehM, WangH, et al . Sulforaphane suppresses the growth of glioblastoma cells, glioblastoma stem cell-like spheroids, and tumor xenografts through multiple cell signaling pathways. J Neurosurg. 2017;127 (6 ):1219–1230.28059653
111. Lubetsky JB , DiosA, HanJ, et al . The tautomerase active site of macrophage migration inhibitory factor is a potential target for discovery of novel anti-inflammatory agents. J Biol Chem. 2002;277 (28 ):24976–24982.11997397
112. Piette C , DeprezM, RogerT, et al . The dexamethasone-induced inhibition of proliferation, migration, and invasion in glioma cell lines is antagonized by macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) and can be enhanced by specific MIF Inhibitors. J Biol Chem. 2009;284 (47 ):32483–32492.19759012
113. Baron N , DeusterO, NoelkerC, et al . Role of macrophage migration inhibitory factor in primary glioblastoma multiforme cells. J Neurosci Res. 2011;89 (5 ):711–717.21360573
114. Yang YP , ChienCS, YarmishynAA, et al . Musashi-1 regulates MIF1-mediated M2 macrophage polarization in promoting glioblastoma progression. Cancers. 2021;13 (8 ):1799.33918794
115. Choudhary S , HegdeP, PruittJR, et al . Macrophage migratory inhibitory factor promotes bladder cancer progression via increasing proliferation and angiogenesis. Carcinogenesis. 2013;34 (12 ):2891–2899.23825153
116. Ioanou K , ChengKF, Crich LowGV, et al . ISO-66, a novel inhibitor of macrophage migration inhibitory factor, shows efficacy in melanoma and colon cancer models. Int J Oncol. 2014;45 (4 ):1457–1468.25050663
117. Mawhinney L , ArmstrongME, O’ReillyC, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) enzymatic activity and lung cancer. Mol Med. 2014;20 (1 ):729–735.
118. Crichlow GV , ChengKF, DabideenD, et al . Alternative chemical modifications reverse the binding orientation of a pharmacophore scaffold in the active site of macrophage migration inhibitory factor. J Biol Chem. 2007;282 (32 ):23089–23095.17526494
119. Hare AA , LengL, GandavadiS, et al . Optimization of N-benzyl-benzoxazol-2-ones as receptor antagonists of macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF). Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2010;20 (19 ):5811–5814.20728358
120. Choi S , KimHR, LengL, et al . Role of macrophage migration inhibitory factor in the regulatory T cell response of tumor-bearing mice. J Immunol. 2012;189 (8 ):3905–3913.22972922
121. Nakamura A , ZengF, NakamuraS, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor drives pathology in a mouse model of spondyloarthritis and is associated with human disease. Sci Transl Med. 2021;13 (616 ):eabg1210.34669443
122. Golubkov PA , JohnsonWH, CzerwinskiRM, et al . Inactivation of the phenylpyruvate tautomerase activity of macrophage migration inhibitory factor by 2-oxo-4-phenyl-3-butynoate. Bioorganic Chem. 2006;34 (4 ):183–199.
123. Winner M , MeierJ, ZierowS, et al . A novel, macrophage migration inhibitory factor suicide substrate inhibits motility and growth of lung cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2008;68 (18 ):7253–7257.18794110
124. Merk M , BaughJ, ZierowS, et al . The golgi-associated protein p115 mediates the secretion of macrophage migration inhibitory factor. J Immunol. 2009;182 (11 ):6896–6906.19454686
125. Imaoka M , TaneseK, MasugiY, HayashiM, SakamotoM. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor-CD 74 interaction regulates the expression of programmed cell death ligand 1 in melanoma cells. Cancer Sci. 2019;110 (7 ):2273–2283.31069878
126. Lee SH , KwonHJ, ParkS, et al . Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) inhibitor 4-IPP downregulates stemness phenotype and mesenchymal trans-differentiation after irradiation in glioblastoma multiforme. Plos One. 2021;16 (9 ):e0257375.34516577
127. Rajasekaran D , ZierowS, SyedM, et al . Targeting distinct tautomerase sites of D-DT and MIF with a single molecule for inhibition of neutrophil lung recruitment. FASEB J. 2014;28 (11 ):4961–4971.25016026
128. Nishino K , OhkuboH, OhashiM, et al . KC-404: a potential anti-allergic agent with antagonistic action against slow reacting substance of anaphylaxis. Jpn J Pharmacol. 1983;33 (2 ):267–278.6193303
129. Suzumura A , ItoA, YoshikawaM, SawadaM. Ibudilast suppresses TNF alpha production by glial cells functioning mainly as type III phosphodiesterase inhibitor in the CNS. Brain Res. 1999;837 (1-2 ):203–212.10434004
130. Huang Z , LiuS, ZhangL, et al . Preferential inhibition of human phosphodiesterase 4 by ibudilast. Life Sci. 2006;78 (23 ):2663–2668.16313925
131. Ong HH , AllenRC. Chapter 33. To Market, To Market—1989. In: Annual Reports in Medicinal Chemistry. Vol. 25 . New York: Elsevie r; 1990:309–322. doi:10.1016/S0065-7743(08)61609-7
132. Miyazaki D , TakamuraE, UchioE, et al. ; Japanese Society of Ocular Allergology. Japanese guidelines for allergic conjunctival diseases 2020. Allergol Int. 2020;69 (3 ):346–355.33211650
133. Miyamoto S , OgasawaraK, KurodaS, et al. ; Committee for Stroke Guideline 2021, the Japan Stroke Society. Japan stroke society guideline 2021 for the treatment of stroke. Int J Stroke. 2022;17 (9 ):1039–1049.35443847
134. Ledeboer A , LiuT, ShumillaJA, et al . The glial modulatory drug AV411 attenuates mechanical allodynia in rat models of neuropathic pain. Neuron Glia Biol. 2006;2 (4 ):279–291.18176632
135. Barkhof F , HulstHE, DrulovićJ, et al. ; MN166-001 Investigators. Ibudilast in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a neuroprotectant? Neurology. 2010;74 (13 ):1033–1040.20200338
136. Fox RJ , CoffeyCS, ConwitR, et al. ; NN102/SPRINT-MS Trial Investigators. Phase 2 trial of ibudilast in progressive multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;379 (9 ):846–855.30157388
137. ClinicalTrials.gov. Ibudilast (MN-166) in Subjects With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) (IBU-ALS-1201). Published online November 5, 2021. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02238626
138. Babu S , HightowerBG, ChanJ, et al . Ibudilast (MN-166) in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis- an open label, safety and pharmacodynamic trial. NeuroImage Clin. 2021;30 :102672.34016561
139. Oskarsson B , MaragakisN, BedlackRS, et al . MN-166 (ibudilast) in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in a Phase IIb/III study: COMBAT-ALS study design. Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2021;11 (6 ):431–443.34816762
140. Ha W , Sevim-NalkiranH, ZamanAM, et al . Ibudilast sensitizes glioblastoma to temozolomide by targeting macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF). Sci Rep. 2019;9 (1 ):2905.30814573
141. ClinicalTrials.gov. Study to evaluate Ibudilast and TMZ combo treatment in newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma. Published online September 13, 2023. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03782415
142. Bai F , AsojoOA, CirilloP, et al . A novel allosteric inhibitor of macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF). J Biol Chem. 2012;287 (36 ):30653–30663.22782901
143. Hu CT , GuoLL, FengN, et al . MIF, secreted by human hepatic sinusoidal endothelial cells, promotes chemotaxis and outgrowth of colorectal cancer in liver prometastasis. Oncotarget. 2015;6 (26 ):22410–22423.26087187
144. Cirillo PF , AsojoOA, KhireU, et al . Inhibition of macrophage migration inhibitory factor by a chimera of two allosteric binders. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2020;11 (10 ):1843–1847.33062162
145. Bloom J , PantourisG, HeM, et al . Iguratimod, an allosteric inhibitor of macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), prevents mortality and oxidative stress in a murine model of acetaminophen overdose. Mol Med. 2024;30 (1 ):43.38539088
146. Tanaka K , ShimotoriT, MakinoS, et al . Pharmacological studies of the new antiinflammatory agent 3-formylamino-7-methylsulfonylamino-6-phenoxy-4H-1-benzopyran-4-o ne. 1st communication: antiinflammatory, analgesic and other related properties. Arzneimittelforschung. 1992;42 (7 ):935–944.1418059
147. Tanaka K , MakinoS, ShimotoriT, et al . Pharmacological studies of the new antiinflammatory agent 3-formylamino-7-methylsulfonylamino-6-phenoxy-4’-1-benzopyran-4-o ne. 2nd communication: effect on the arachidonic acid cascades. Arzneimittelforschung. 1992;42 (7 ):945–950.1329779
148. Tanaka K , ShimotoriT, MakinoS, et al . Pharmacological studies on 3-formylamino-7-methylsulfonylamino-6-phenoxy-4H-1-benzopyran-4-one (T-614), a novel antiinflammatory agent. 3rd communication: the involvement of bradykinin in its analgesic actions. J Pharmacobiodyn. 1992;15 (11 ):641–647.1289499
149. Tanaka K , AikawaY, KawasakiH, et al . Pharmacological studies on 3-formylamino-7-methylsulfonylamino-6-phenoxy-4H-1-benzopyran-4-one (T-614), a novel antiinflammatory agent. 4th communication: inhibitory effect on the production of interleukin-1 and interleukin-6. J Pharmacobiodyn. 1992;15 (11 ):649–655.1289500
150. Tanaka K , KawasakiH, KurataK, et al . T-614, a novel antirheumatic drug, inhibits both the activity and induction of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in cultured fibroblasts. Jpn J Pharmacol. 1995;67 (4 ):305–314.7650864
151. Kohno M , AikawaY, TsubouchiY, et al . Inhibitory effect of T-614 on tumor necrosis factor-alpha induced cytokine production and nuclear factor-kappaB activation in cultured human synovial cells. J Rheumatol. 2001;28 (12 ):2591–2596.11764202
152. Aikawa Y , YamamotoM, YamamotoT, MorimotoK, TanakaK. An anti-rheumatic agent T-614 inhibits NF-kappaB activation in LPS- and TNF-alpha-stimulated THP-1 cells without interfering with IkappaBalpha degradation. Inflammation Res. 2002;51 (4 ):188–194.
153. Luo Q , SunY, LiuW, et al . A novel disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, iguratimod, ameliorates murine arthritis by blocking IL-17 signaling, distinct from methotrexate and leflunomide. J Immunol. 2013;191 (10 ):4969–4978.24123677
154. Tanaka K , YamamotoT, AikawaY, et al . Inhibitory effects of an anti-rheumatic agent T-614 on immunoglobulin production by cultured B cells and rheumatoid synovial tissues engrafted into SCID mice. Rheumatol Oxf Engl. 2003;42 (11 ):1365–1371.
155. Bloom J , MetzC, NalawadeS, et al . Identification of iguratimod as an inhibitor of macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) with steroid-sparing potential. J Biol Chem. 2016;291 (51 ):26502–26514.27793992
156. Jiang H , GaoH, WangQ, WangM, WuB. Molecular mechanisms and clinical application of Iguratimod: a review. Biomed Pharmacother. 2020;122 (February ):109704.31918275
157. Bronson J , DharM, EwingW, LonbergN. To Market, To Market—2011. In: Annual Reports in Medicinal Chemistry. Vol. 47 . New York: Elsevier; 2012:499–569. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-396492-2.00031-X
158. Graul AI , LuponeB, CrucesE, StringerM. 2012 in review - part I: the year’s new drugs & biologics. Drugs Today (Barc). 2013;49 (1 ):33–68.23362494
159. Younis M , FamingW, HongyanZ, et al . Iguratimod encapsulated PLGA-NPs improves therapeutic outcome in glioma, glioma stem-like cells and temozolomide resistant glioma cells. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med. 2019;22 (November ):102101.
160. Younis M , WuY, FangQ, ShanH, HuangX. Synergistic therapeutic antitumor effect of PD-1 blockade cellular vesicles in combination with iguratimod and Rhodium nanoparticles. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2023;649 (November ):929–942.37392683
161. Ouertatani-Sakouhi H , El-TurkF, FauvetB, et al . Identification and characterization of novel classes of macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) inhibitors with distinct mechanisms of action. J Biol Chem. 2010;285 (34 ):26581–26598.20516071
162. Sharma V , TewariR, SkUH, JosephC, SenE. Ebselen sensitizes glioblastoma cells to Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNFα)-induced apoptosis through two distinct pathways involving NF-κB downregulation and Fas-mediated formation of death inducing signaling complex. Int J Cancer. 2008;123 (9 ):2204–2212.18709644
163. Tewari R , SharmaV, KoulN, et al . Ebselen abrogates TNFα induced pro-inflammatory response in glioblastoma. Mol Oncol. 2009;3 (1 ):77–83.19383369
164. Yue WY , ClarkJJ, FernandoA, DomannF, HansenMR. Contribution of persistent C-Jun N-terminal kinase activity to the survival of human vestibular schwannoma cells by suppression of accumulation of mitochondrial superoxides. Neuro-Oncol. 2011;13 (9 ):961–973.21697181
165. Erlichman C. Tanespimycin: the opportunities and challenges of targeting heat shock protein 90. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2009;18 (6 ):861–868.
166. Schulz R , MarchenkoND, HolembowskiL, et al . Inhibiting the HSP90 chaperone destabilizes macrophage migration inhibitory factor and thereby inhibits breast tumor progression. J Exp Med. 2012;209 (2 ):275–289.22271573
167. Mehta A , ShervingtonL, MunjeC, ShervingtonA. A novel therapeutic strategy for the treatment of glioma, combining chemical and molecular targeting of Hsp90a. Cancers. 2011;3 (4 ):4228–4244.24213135
168. Pastvova N , DolezelP, MlejnekP. Heat shock protein inhibitor 17-allyamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin, a potent inductor of apoptosis in human glioma tumor cell lines, is a weak substrate for ABCB1 and ABCG2 transporters. Pharmaceuticals. 2021;14 (2 ):107.33573093
169. Saxena V , HussainMD. Formulation and in vitro evaluation of 17-allyamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin (17-AAG) loaded polymeric mixed micelles for glioblastoma multiforme. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2013;112 (December ):350–355.24012704
170. Gaspar N , SharpSY, PaceyS, et al . Acquired resistance to 17-allylamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin (17-AAG, tanespimycin) in glioblastoma cells. Cancer Res. 2009;69 (5 ):1966–1975.19244114
171. Gaspar N , SharpSY, EcclesSA, et al . Mechanistic evaluation of the novel HSP90 inhibitor NVP-AUY922 in adult and pediatric glioblastoma. Mol Cancer Ther. 2010;9 (5 ):1219–1233.20457619
172. Schulz R , StrellerF, ScheelAH, et al . HER2/ErbB2 activates HSF1 and thereby controls HSP90 clients including MIF in HER2-overexpressing breast cancer. Cell Death Dis. 2014;5 (1 ):e980.24384723
173. Schaefer S , SvenstrupTH, GuerraB. The small-molecule kinase inhibitor D11 counteracts 17-AAG-mediated up-regulation of HSP70 in brain cancer cells. Plos One. 2017;12 (5 ):e0177706.28542269
174. Patwardhan CA , KommalapatiVK, LlbiyiT, et al . Capsaicin binds the N-terminus of Hsp90, induces lysosomal degradation of Hsp70, and enhances the anti-tumor effects of 17-AAG (Tanespimycin). Sci Rep. 2023;13 (1 ):13790.37612326
175. Schopf FH , BieblMM, BuchnerJ. The HSP90 chaperone machinery. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2017;18 (6 ):345–360.28429788
176. Meza-Romero R , BenedekG, YuX, et al . HLA-DRα1 constructs block CD74 expression and MIF effects in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. J Immunol. 2014;192 (9 ):4164–4173.24683185
177. Vandenbark AA , Meza-RomeroR, BenedekG, et al . A novel regulatory pathway for autoimmune disease: binding of partial MHC class II constructs to monocytes reduces CD74 expression and induces both specific and bystander T-cell tolerance. J Autoimmun. 2013;40 (February ):96–110.23026773
178. Offner H , SinhaS, BurrowsGG, FerroAJ, VandenbarkAA. RTL therapy for multiple sclerosis: a Phase I clinical study. J Neuroimmunol. 2011;231 (1-2 ):7–14.20965577
179. Figueiredo CR , MatsuoAL, MassaokaMH, PolonelliL, TravassosLR. Anti-tumor activities of peptides corresponding to conserved complementary determining regions from different immunoglobulins. Peptides. 2014;59 (September ):14–19.24972300
180. Figueiredo CR , AzevedoRA, MousdellS, et al . Blockade of MIF-CD74 signalling on macrophages and dendritic cells restores the antitumour immune response against metastatic melanoma. Front Immunol. 2018;9 (May ):1132.29875777
181. Kraemer S , LueH, ZerneckeA, et al . MIF-chemokine receptor interactions in atherogenesis are dependent on an N-loop-based 2-site binding mechanism. FASEB J. 2011;25 (3 ):894–906.21106938
182. Xu H , LinF, WangZ, et al . CXCR2 promotes breast cancer metastasis and chemoresistance via suppression of AKT1 and activation of COX2. Cancer Lett. 2018;412 (January ):69–80.28964785
183. Cheng Y , MoF, LiQ, et al . Targeting CXCR2 inhibits the progression of lung cancer and promotes therapeutic effect of cisplatin. Mol Cancer. 2021;20 (1 ):62.33814009
184. Purohit A , SaxenaS, VarneyM, et al . Host Cxcr2-dependent regulation of pancreatic cancer growth, angiogenesis, and metastasis. Am J Pathol. 2021;191 (4 ):759–771.33453178
185. Kerschbaumer RJ , RiegerM, VölkelD, et al . Neutralization of macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) by fully human antibodies correlates with their specificity for the β-sheet structure of MIF. J Biol Chem. 2012;287 (10 ):7446–7455.22238348
186. Hussain F , FreissmuthM, VölkelD, et al . Human anti-macrophage migration inhibitory factor antibodies inhibit growth of human prostate cancer cells in vitro and in vivo. Mol Cancer Ther. 2013;12 (7 ):1223–1234.23619302
187. Mahalingam D , PatelMR, SachdevJC, et al . Phase I study of imalumab (BAX69), a fully human recombinant antioxidized macrophage migration inhibitory factor antibody in advanced solid tumours. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;86 (9 ):1836–1848.32207164
188. Rossmueller G , MirkinaI, MaurerB, et al . Preclinical evaluation of ON203, a novel bioengineered mAb targeting oxidized macrophage migration inhibitory factor as an anticancer therapeutic. Mol Cancer Ther. 2023;22 (5 ):555–569.37067909
189. Ferhat M , ManganoK, MirkinaI, et al . The newly engineered monoclonal antibody ON104, targeting the oxidized macrophage migration inhibitory factor (oxMIF), ameliorates clinical and histopathological signs of collagen-induced arthritis. Eur J Pharmacol. 2023;956 (October ):175997.37579967
190. Stein R , QuZ, CardilloTM, et al . Antiproliferative activity of a humanized anti-CD74 monoclonal antibody, hLL1, on B-cell malignancies. Blood. 2004;104 (12 ):3705–3711.15297317
191. Stein R , SmithMR, ChenS, ZalathM, GoldenbergDM. Combining milatuzumab with bortezomib, doxorubicin, or dexamethasone improves responses in multiple myeloma cell lines. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15 (8 ):2808–2817.19351768
192. Kaufman J , NiesvizkyR, StadtmauerEA, et al . First trial of humanized anti-CD74 Monoclonal Antibody (MAb), milatuzumab, in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2008;112 (11 ):3697–3697.
193. Kaufman JL , NiesvizkyR, StadtmauerEA, et al . Phase I, multicentre, dose-escalation trial of monotherapy with milatuzumab (humanized anti-CD 74 monoclonal antibody) in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2013;163 (4 ):478–486.24112026
194. Christian BA , PoiM, JonesJA, et al . The combination of milatuzumab, a humanized anti-CD74 antibody, and veltuzumab, a humanized anti-CD20 antibody, demonstrates activity in patients with relapsed and refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2015;169 (5 ):701–710.25847298
195. Martin P , FurmanRR, RutherfordS, et al . Phase I study of the anti-CD74 monoclonal antibody milatuzumab (hLL1) in patients with previously treated B-cell lymphomas. Leuk Lymphoma. 2015;56 (11 ):3065–3070.25754579
196. Sparkes A , De BaetselierP, BrysL, et al . Novel half-life extended anti-MIF nanobodies protect against endotoxic shock. FASEB J. 2018;32 (6 ):3411–3422.29401625
