nos2 inhibitor l nil (MedChemExpress)
Structured Review

Nos2 Inhibitor L Nil, supplied by MedChemExpress, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 93/100, based on 15 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/nos2 inhibitor l nil/product/MedChemExpress
Average 93 stars, based on 15 article reviews
Images
1) Product Images from "Immunogenic tumor cell death and T-cell-derived IFN-γ elicit tumoricidal macrophages to potentiate OX40 immunotherapy"
Article Title: Immunogenic tumor cell death and T-cell-derived IFN-γ elicit tumoricidal macrophages to potentiate OX40 immunotherapy
Journal: Cell Reports Medicine
doi: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2026.102699
Figure Legend Snippet: NOS2-expressing macrophages is associated with response to αOX40 therapy (A) UMAP of monocytes/macrophages subclusters from scRNA-seq data in αOX40-treated MC38-bearing mice. (B) Representative marker genes in the monocyte/macrophage subclusters. (C) Pie chart showing the proportional distribution of monocyte/macrophage subsets of responders and nonresponders. (D) QuSAGE pathway analysis demonstrated enrichment of innate immune and phagocytic signaling pathways in distinct monocyte/macrophage subsets. (E) UMAP showing Mac_C1 signature genes and a heatmap of immune-related gene expression across TAM subclusters ( Z score normalized). (F) Violin plots comparing Nos2 expression levels in Mac_C1 subset between responsive and nonresponsive. (G) Flow cytometry analysis shows the percentage of M1-like (F4/80 + NOS2 + ) and M2-like (F4/80 + CD206 + ) macrophages in tumor tissues of control ( n = 5 mice), nonresponders (with minimal to no response, n = 4 mice), and responders (with a robust therapeutic response, n = 4 mice). (H and I) Comparison of Nos2 expression levels in responders versus nonresponders pre- or post-αOX40 treatment. Bilateral-MC38-bearing mice were treated with αOX40, and tumors from one side were analyzed by RNA-seq prior to (H) or following αOX40 treatment (I). The Nos2 expression was analyzed from RNA-seq data (left) and validated by RT-qPCR (right) ( n = 5 biological replicates). (J) NOS2 expression in tumor biopsies post-treatment determined by RNA-seq. Patients with advanced solid tumors and >1 prior therapy received HFB301001 monotherapy. Tumor biopsy samples were obtained on day 8 of cycle 2 for subsequent RNA-seq analysis. NOS2 expression were compared between patients achieving stable disease (SD, n = 3) and those with progressive disease (PD, n = 3). (K) GO enrichment analysis of upregulated genes in Mac_C1 of responders. (L) Calreticulin expression was quantified by flow cytometry in different response groups following αOX40 treatment ( n = 3 mice per group). (M) NOS2 expression in BMDMs was analyzed by flow cytometry after stimulation with CD8 + T cell supernatant and MC38 lysate, combined with TLR inhibition and IFN-γ blockade ( n = 5 biological replicates). (N) Quantification of Nos2 expression in BMDM by RT-qPCR after 24-h stimulation with MPLA (TLR4 agonist, 100 ng/mL), IFN-γ (20 ng/mL), or both. Data normalized to Gapdh and presented as fold-change relative to unstimulated controls ( n = 4 biological replicates). Data are shown as means ± SD from one of two independent experiments (G, H, I, L, M, and N). Statistical significance was determined using one-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons (G, L, M, and N) or using an unpaired two-tailed t test (H, I, and J). n.s., not significant; ∗ p < 0.05, ∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗ p < 0.0001; VST, variance stabilized transformation; sup., supernatant; lys., tumor lysate; inh., inhibitor.
Techniques Used: Expressing, Marker, Protein-Protein interactions, Gene Expression, Flow Cytometry, Control, Clinical Proteomics, Comparison, RNA Sequencing, Quantitative RT-PCR, Inhibition, Two Tailed Test, Transformation Assay
Figure Legend Snippet: NOS2-high macrophages are significantly associated with Combo treatment efficacy (A) UMAP of macrophage subclusters from scRNA-seq data of MC38-bearing mice treated with control, MPLA+IFN-γ, αOX40, or Combo. Cells are color-coded by annotated subtype. (B) Bubble chart showing the top variable marker genes for identified macrophage subclusters. (C) Pie chart shows the relative abundance of four macrophage subclusters in control, αOX40, MPLA+IFN-γ, or Combo. (D) GO pathway analysis identifying significantly enriched signaling pathways in the Mac_S2 subcluster compared to other macrophage subpopulations. (E) Violin plots showing Nos2 expression levels across macrophage subclusters. (F) Violin plots comparing Nos2 and Cd206 expression levels among different treatment groups. (G) Frequency of M1-like, M2-like, or the ratio of M1/M2-like macrophage cells in tumor tissues from control, αOX40, MPLA+IFN-γ, and Combo groups with two time points, as determined by flow cytometry ( n = 5–10 mice per group). (H) Multiple immunofluorescence signal intensities of NOS2 + F4/80 + and CD206 + F4/80 + cells in the TME of control, αOX40, MPLA+IFN-γ, and Combo groups. Scale bars, 20 μm. Data are shown as means ± SD from one of two independent experiments (G and H). Statistical significance was determined using one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test (G). n.s., not significant; ∗ p < 0.05, ∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗ p < 0.0001.
Techniques Used: Control, Marker, Protein-Protein interactions, Expressing, Flow Cytometry, Immunofluorescence
Figure Legend Snippet: NOS2-dependent direct tumor cell killing by macrophages in Combo therapy (A) Schematic of co-culture using CFSE-labeled MC38 cells with tumor- or spleen-derived macrophages, with/without NIL treatment. (B) Flow cytometry quantification of 7-AAD + MC38 cells after 48 h co-culture with tumor-(right) or spleen (left)-derived macrophages ( n = 3 biological replicates). (C) Quantification of 7-AAD + MC38 cells after 48 h in vitro co-culture with or without NIL treatment ( n = 3 biological replicates). (D) Treatment schedule for MC38- or B16-tumor-bearing Nos2 KOor WT mice treated with Combo ( n = 6 mice per group). (E and F) Survival curves of MC38-bearing (E) and B16-bearing mice (F) were analyzed using the log rank test. (G) Flow cytometry analysis of 7-AAD + MC38 cells after 48-h co-culture with CFSE-labeled MC38 cells and BMDMs from Nos2 KO mice ( n = 5 biological replicates). (H) Phagocytosis rate of MC38 cells engulfed by BMDMs was assessed by flow cytometry ( n = 3 biological replicates). (I) Surface expression of CRT on MC38 cells was assessed by flow cytometry after co-culture with MPLA- and IFN-γ-polarized BMDMs in vitro ( n = 3 biological replicates). (J) Analysis of CALR + MC38 cells from MC38-tumor-bearing mice following final treatment with control or Combo, assessed by flow cytometry ( n = 5 biological replicates). Data are shown as means ± SD from one of two independent experiments (B, C, E, F, G, H, I, and J). Statistical significance was determined using one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons (B, C, and I) or using unpaired Student’s t test (G, H, and J). Log rank tests (E and F) were also used for statistical analysis. n.s., not significant; ∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗ p < 0.0001. Combo, MPLA, and IFN-γ combined with αOX86 (E and F).
Techniques Used: Co-Culture Assay, Labeling, Derivative Assay, Flow Cytometry, In Vitro, Expressing, Control
Figure Legend Snippet: Foxp3 + Treg depletion and macrophage reprogramming are involved in the anti-tumor effect of Combo (A) Flow cytometry analysis of TME. MC38-tumor-bearing mice were treated with control, αOX40, MPLA+IFN-γ, or Combo for two and three doses, and tumors were analyzed by flow cytometry. (B) Frequency and absolute count of CD25 + FOXP3 + cells in tumor tissues from control, αOX40, MPLA+IFN-γ, and Combo groups with two time points, as determined by flow cytometry ( n = 5 mice per group). (C) Treatment schedule for MC38-tumor-bearing Fcer1g KO or FcγRIIb KO mice. Mice were treated with Control, αOX40, MPLA+IFN-γ, and Combo every 3 days for a total of four doses. (D and E) Survival curves of Fcgr1g KO (D) and FcgrIIb KO (E) mice following treatment ( n = 5–6 mice per group) were monitored. (F) Treatment schedule. MC38-tumor-bearing mice were treated with MPLA and IFN-γ in combination with either OX40-mIgG2a or OX40-hIgG1 agonist antibodies (top), and the corresponding survival curves are shown (bottom) ( n = 5–7 mice per group). (G) Schematic of the co-culture experiment involving BMDMs and Tregs at a ratio of 1:4 (BMDM:Treg); Nos2 expression was measured by RT-qPCR. (H) Relative expression of Nos2 following the co-culture ( n = 4 biological replicates). (I) Multiple immunofluorescence (mIF) staining of MC38 tumors from mice treated with control, αOX40, MPLA+IFN-γ, or Combo, showing FOXP3 and NOS2 expression in border or intra-tumoral. Scale bars, 50 μm. (J) Analysis of cell numbers of FOXP3 and NOS2 expression at the border and intra-tumoral. Representative images from five randomly chosen fields were quantified with ImageJ. Data are shown as means ± SD from one of two independent experiments (B, D, E, F, H, and I). Statistical significance was determined using one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons (B and H). Log rank test was also used (D–F). n.s., not significant; ∗ p < 0.05, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗ p < 0.0001. Combo, MPLA, and IFN-γ combined with αOX86 (C–E).
Techniques Used: Flow Cytometry, Control, Co-Culture Assay, Expressing, Quantitative RT-PCR, Immunofluorescence, Staining


