Abstract
Complement is increasingly recognised as a driver and modulator of antitumour immunity, with context‐dependent effects across T cells, myeloid subsets, stromal elements and tumour cells. Although best known for pathogen clearance and membrane attack complex (MAC) formation, complement also acts intracellularly via the ‘complosome’ to regulate cellular homeostasis and gene expression. Complosome activity may dampen antitumour responses by rewiring single‐cell metabolism and transcription, altering nutrient flux and fostering an immunosuppressive microenvironment. Here, we synthesise advances in intracellular and extracellular complement, with emphasis on complement component 3 (C3) and receptors (C3aR1, C5aR1/CD88, C5aR2/C5L2), highlighting how these pathways shape T‐cell metabolism, exhaustion programmes and inflammatory tone within tumours. Evidence indicates that tonic C3/C5 signalling restrains cytotoxicity via C5aR1‐driven myeloid recruitment and cytokine cascades, while complosome signalling tunes T‐cell activation thresholds and bioenergetics. We outline considerations for selectively modulating intracellular versus extracellular complement, propose cell‐type‐resolved biomarker strategies and identify opportunities for complosome‐directed therapies in cancer, integrating roles across T cells, macrophages, B cells, neutrophils, NK cells, regulatory T cells, dendritic cells, myeloid‐derived suppressor cells and cancer‐associated fibroblasts.
Key points
Intracellular complement (complosome) shapes the tumor immune microenvironment.
Complosome's role in cancer is underrecognized yet central to tumor immunity.
C3/C5‐driven complosome signals rewire T cell activation, fate, and metabolism. Complosome activity can promote pro‐tumor immune cell function.
Blocking the complosome, alone or with checkpoint inhibitors, unveils a new tumor target.
Keywords: C3, C3a, C5, C5a, cancer immunity, complement system, complosome, immune cells, immunotherapy, intracellular complement, tumour microenvironment
Intracellular complement (complosome) shapes the tumour immune microenvironment.
Complosome's role in cancer is underrecognised yet central to tumour immunity.
C3/C5‐driven complosome signals rewire T‐cell activation, fate and metabolism.
Complosome activity can promote pro‐tumour immune cell function.
Blocking the complosome, alone or with checkpoint inhibitors, unveils a new tumour target.

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE COMPLEMENT SYSTEM
One of the oldest and most important components of innate immunity is the activation of the complement system, a cluster of over 50 highly conserved, membrane‐bound and intracellular proteins that primarily circulate in blood and lymph, opsonise pathogens and induce inflammatory responses. 1 Initially described as a ‘complement’ to enhance and support antibodies in the detection and removal of pathogens, it is now understood that the complement system can independently trigger immunosurveillance.
Three known canonical pathways activate liver‐derived and serum‐effective complement in the extracellular space: (i) the classical (antibody‐dependent) pathway, (ii) the lectin (carbohydrate recognition) pathway, and (iii) the alternative pathway activated continuously at low levels 2 (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1.

Overview of the three main complement activation pathways including the (A) classical pathway, (B) lectin pathway and (C) alternative pathway. All three pathways converge at the cleavage of C3. Unlike the classical or lectin pathway, the alternative pathway is continuously active at low levels due to spontaneous hydrolysis of C3 thioester and utilises a distinct C3 convertase comprised of C3b and a cleaved fragment of plasma protein Factor B. When C3b is bound to a pathogen surface, Factor B binds and is cleaved by plasma protein Factor D, resulting in C3bBb (C3 convertase). Complement may also be activated via the coagulation cascade pathway (tissue damage) Factor XIIa, which upregulates C1 in the classical pathway, or via inducible serine proteases and proteins (thrombin, plasmin) activated by macrophages. 148 Created with BioRender.com.
All pathways converge on the central component C3, generating activation products C3a/C3b and downstream C5a/C5b, culminating in anaphylatoxin release, opsonisation and membrane attack complex (MAC) assembly. Beyond hepatic sources, extracellular complement proteins (namely, C3 and C5) can also be secreted by macrophages, monocytes, endothelial cells, epithelial cells, natural killer (NK), dendritic cells (DC), cancer cells, B and T lymphocytes 3 , 4 (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2.

An overview of extracellular complement activation. Canonical complement activation via the classical, lectin and alternative pathways and the coagulation cascade. Autocrine complement protein secretion occurs in T cells, antigen‐presenting cells and endothelial cells. Created with BioRender.com.
2. INTRACELLULAR COMPLEMENT: THE COMPLOSOME
While historical attention has focused on the complement system as an extracellular component of innate immunity, intracellular complement known as ‘the complosome’ has been recently identified as a key cell‐intrinsic signalling programme that integrates metabolism, autophagy, immune activation and gene regulation. 1 First defined in CD4+ T cells in 2013, intracellular complement activation and endogenous C3 and C5 protein production were revealed as essential for T‐cell homeostasis and pro‐inflammatory cytokine production. 5 Since then, complosome activity has been detected in monocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells, epithelial and cancer cells, among others. 1 , 6
2.1. Generation of intracellular complement effectors
Intracellular complement signalling is mediated by C3aR1 and C5aR1/C5aR2, which can signal from endosomal/lysosomal compartments and, in defined contexts, from mitochondria or the plasma membrane of immune and non‐immune cells. 7 The transmembrane cofactor/receptor CD46 is a second hub of complosome control: C3b (and C4b) engagement of CD46 triggers intracellular cascades (via CYT‐1/CYT‐2 cytoplasmic tails) that couple nutrient sensing and transcriptional programmes to complement status. 8 T‐cell receptor (TCR) stimulation in T cells and Toll‐like receptor (TLR) activation in antigen‐presenting cells can drive de novo C3/C5 generation, with cathepsin‐dependent cleavage proposed as one route to yield C3a/C3b/C5a intracellularly; precise enzymology remains incompletely defined. 9 In parallel, stores of C3 and C5 have been observed within intracellular vesicles (endosomes and lysosomes) of multiple cell types, facilitating intracellular complement activation when transported out of the cell membrane or vesicle, where autocrine re‐engagement with C3aR and C5aR is possible. 5 CD46 signalling (via CYT‐1 nuclear shuttling and metabolic cues) has been linked to upregulated C3/C5 transcription, further reinforcing the complosome loop. 10
3. COMPLEMENT AND CANCER
Mounting evidence places the intracellular complement programme (complosome) at the interface of tumour biology and immunity, linking cell‐intrinsic signalling to T‐cell dysfunction, myeloid remodelling, and therapy resistance in the tumour microenvironment. Local complement activity is detected across cancers, supporting a role in the tumour microenvironment (TME) (Table 1).
TABLE 1.
Evidence of complement protein dysregulation in cancer.
| Protein | Cancer type | Description | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overexpression of complement proteins in cancer | |||
| C1q | Cervical cancer | Increased levels of C1qB protein are found in serum and cervical cancer tumour tissue. C1qB expression positively correlated with Ki67 and P16 expression | 11 |
| Melanoma, colon adenocarcinoma, lung adenocarcinoma, breast adenocarcinoma, pancreatic cancer | Increased levels of C1q in tumour stroma and vascular endothelium, mainly expressed by vascular endothelial cells, fibroblasts and myeloid cells | ||
| Glioblastoma | Serum C1q upregulated in glioblastoma patients vs. healthy matched tissue, and C1q marked deposition within tumour tissue | 13 | |
| C1s | Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) | Overexpression of C1s in cSCC observed in cell lines and patient samples. Knockdown of C1s promotes apoptosis and growth suppression in vitro | 14 |
| Renal cancer | Overexpression of C1s in tumours independently associated with high infiltration of macrophages and T cells in patient samples and associated with poor prognosis | 15 | |
| Prostate cancer | Serum C1q upregulated in prostate patients vs. healthy matched tissue | 16 | |
| C1qBP | Lung cancer | Overexpression of C1qBP in patient lung cancer samples compared to healthy tissue | 17 |
| C1r | SCC | Overexpression of C1r in SCC observed in cell lines and patient samples. Knockdown of C1r promotes apoptosis and growth suppression in vitro | 14 |
| Melanoma | Overexpression of C1r in patient samples of melanoma vs. healthy tissue | ||
| C3 | Gastric cancer | Overexpression of C3 in gastric cancer tissue compared to healthy tissues | 18 |
| Pancreatic cancer | C3 overexpressed in PDAC tissue, and its expression correlates with metastatic potential | 19, 20 | |
| C3a | cSCC | C3a overexpression in patient tumour tissues correlated with tumour cell growth in vitro | 21 |
| Oesophageal adenocarcinoma | Overexpression of C3a in oesophageal adenocarcinoma tissue compared to healthy tissues | 22 | |
| Breast cancer | Overexpression of C3a in serum of breast cancer patients compared to healthy patients | 23 | |
| C3b | NSCLC | Overexpression of C3 observed in paclitaxel resistance of NSCLC cells; knockdown of C3 promotes apoptosis | 24 |
| C4a | Papillary thyroid cancer | Overexpression of C4a in serum of patients | 25 |
| C4d | Renal cancer | Overexpression of C4d in plasma of renal cancer patients and deposits at tumour site | 26 |
| C9 | Gastric cancer | C9 overexpression in the sera of gastric cancer patients vs. healthy controls | 27 |
| CD55 | Colon cancer | CD55 overexpression associated with less differentiated, higher grade tumour tissue in patient samples | 28 |
| CD59 | Colon cancer | CD59 overexpression associated with less differentiated, higher grade tumour tissue in patient samples | 28 |
| CD46 | Bladder cancer | CD46 overexpressed in bladder cancer compared to healthy tissue, and CD46 expression inversely correlated with tumour stage, grade and disease progression risk | 29 |
| Underexpression of complement proteins in cancer | |||
| C1q | Prostate cancer | C1q downregulated in benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer tissue, inactivating tumour suppressor WWOX | 30 |
| C1s | Ovarian cancer | Downregulation of C1s mRNA observed in diseased tissue vs. healthy control | 31, 32 |
| Lung cancer | Downregulation of C1s at site of lung cancer tumour tissue compared to peritumoral tissue | 17 | |
| C4BP | Ovarian cancer | Downregulation of C4BP mRNA in ovarian cancer tissue compared to healthy control | 32 |
| C7 | Ovarian cancer | Downregulation of C7 mRNA in ovarian cancer tissue compared to healthy control | 32 |
| CD55 | Ovarian cancer | Downregulation of CD55 in ovarian cancer tissue compared to healthy controls | 33 |
In the clinic, among glioblastoma multiforme patients, elevated C3 and C5b levels were observed in tumour tissue versus healthy controls. 13 Elevated deposition of C3 has also been observed in patient samples of non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), gastric cancer and pancreatic cancer. 18 , 19 , 34 High deposition of C3 has been significantly associated with poor overall 5‐year survival in gastric cancer patient samples, and was significantly associated with pancreatic cancer metastasis. 18 , 19 The effector anaphylatoxin C3a has also been shown to have increased deposition in tumour cell tissue when compared to healthy control tissue in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), breast cancer and oesophageal adenocarcinoma. 35 Additionally, elevated complement proteins are frequently found in sera from cancer patients versus healthy controls. Elevated C3a protein has been observed in the sera of breast cancer patients, and elevated C3a in breast cancer tissue is associated with lymph node metastasis. 23 , 36
Functionally, complement proteins produced both intracellulary and extracellularly have been shown to have a direct impact on tumour growth and therapeutic response. In a lung cancer murine model, silencing of C3 inhibited tumour growth, 37 and in NSCLC models, nuclear C3b is enriched in paclitaxel‐resistant cells, implicating complement in drug resistance. 24 Clinically, complement proteins have been linked to treatment response and resistance. In colorectal (CRC) cancer, high C3 expression was associated with increased FOLFOX chemotherapy resistance and poorer prognosis. 38 Although complement classically enables cell killing, the complosome in immune and tumour cells can promote a pro‐tumour, immunosuppressive TME via myeloid recruitment, T‐cell metabolic/exhaustion programmes and altered cytokine networks. 39 Here, we map the complosome–immune microenvironment interface in cancer, examining how these circuits may underpin treatment resistance, tumour response and inform actionable interventions.
Despite increasing evidence supporting a pro‐tumour role for intracellular complement signalling, it is important to highlight that findings across studies are not uniformly concordant. While multiple reports demonstrate that intracellular C3 and C5 activation promotes tumour cell survival, immune evasion and metabolic adaptation, other studies suggest that complement signalling may exert context‐dependent or even antitumour effects under specific conditions. 40 , 41 For example, discrepancies have been reported depending on tumour type, stage and immune composition, as well as whether complement activity is assessed acutely versus chronically. 42 , 43 These divergent observations highlight that complosome signalling is not inherently oncogenic, but instead reflects a context‐sensitive regulatory axis whose functional consequences depend on cellular state and microenvironmental cues.
4. COMPLEMENT, IMMUNE ACTIVATION AND T CELLS IN CANCER
Rather than functioning through isolated signalling pathways, intracellular complement activation integrates metabolic, transcriptional and inflammatory programmes that collectively shape immune cell fate and tumour behaviour. In both immune and malignant cells, the complosome acts as a central organising axis that links intracellular proteolysis of complement components to downstream metabolic rewiring, cytokine output and cell survival. Understanding how these pathways converge, rather than considering them as independent observations, is essential for appreciating the role of the complosome in immune activation, immune suppression and therapy resistance.
Immunologically, intracellular complosome and complement proteins secreted by tumour and/or immune cells play a significant role in the housekeeping of immune responses, particularly among T cells. CD4+ and CD8+ T cells are the two lymphocyte subsets that are crucial for cell‐mediated immunity and the activation of cytotoxic immune responses to tumour cells. 44 CD4+ and CD8+ T cells contain low but measurable intracellular stores of C3/C5, with de novo synthesis upregulated following TCR or cytokine stimulation. 3 , 45 It has been shown that intracellular cathepsins (CTSL) can then cleave C3/C5 to generate C3a/C5a, supporting cell‐intrinsic complosome signalling. 5 , 46
Early infection models implicated complement in T‐cell responses; C3 was first suggested to mediate CD4+ and CD8+ T‐cell responses in 2002, where mice deficient in C3 had significantly lower lymphocyte responses in a preclinical model of influenza. 47 However, the link between complement and T‐cell‐mediated anticancer immunity was not identified until 2008 by Markiewski et al., when TME‐derived C5a was shown to suppress antitumour CD8+ T‐cell responses, enhance tumour growth, increase production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), nitric oxide synthase (NOS) and immunosuppressive myeloid‐derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) in a murine cervical cancer model. 48 Subsequent work has linked complement to dampened anticancer CD4+/CD8+ responses across models, including C5aR1‐dependent suppression and C3a‐driven restraint of CTL proliferation/apoptosis programmes. 48 , 49 , 50 Vadrevu et al. demonstrated that expression of C5aR promotes metastases in a breast murine model by suppressing CD8+ and CD4+ T‐cell populations and function in lung tissue. 49 C3a has also been shown to be specifically expressed by immune cell populations and promotes T‐cell apoptosis and inhibition of CTL proliferation. 51
4.1. Potential complosome–immune axis mechanisms underlying carcinogenesis
Defects in antitumour CD8+/CD4+ function reflect complosome‐connected mechanisms: (i) T‐helper differentiation, (ii) metabolic reprogramming, (iii) APC‐mediated suppression and (iv) CD46 signalling 52 (Figure 3). In T cells, intracellular complosome activity is mainly mediated by C3aR1/C5aR1/C5aR2, which can signal from the plasma membrane, endosomes/lysosomes and in defined contexts, mitochondria. 5 Upon activation of these receptors on and within T cells, increases in cellular glycolysis, oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS), mTOR signalling, nutrient efflux, ROS and pro‐inflammatory cytokines (context‐dependent [IL‐12, IL‐13]) have been observed. 53 However, T cells are not the only immune subpopulation shown to mediate or be mediated by complosome activation. In a sentinel study by Liszeski et al., both basal ‘resting state’ intracellular stores of C3 and ‘tonic’ intracellular C3a have been observed in myeloid (monocytes, neutrophils), lymphoid (CD8+ T cells, B cells), epithelial, endothelial cells and fibroblasts. 5 While the complosome is most well characterised in T cells, intracellular complement seems to be a ubiquitous phenomenon across immune cell populations. Additionally, complosome activity within tumour cells themselves has the potential to recruit immunosuppressive MDSCs, 54 impair T‐cell function 55 and polarise macrophages to a pro‐tumour phenotype. 56
FIGURE 3.

An overview of the complosome signalling dynamics governing immune activation in both immune and cancer cells. Schematic illustrating parallel but functionally divergent complosome signalling pathways in lymphocytes (left) and tumour cells (right). In lymphocytes, intracellular stores of C3 and C5 are cleaved within endolysosomal compartments, generating C3a and C5a that signal through intracellular and surface‐localised C3aR and C5aR, as well as CD46. Engagement of these receptors coordinates metabolic reprogramming, including increased glycolysis, nutrient uptake via GLUT1 and LAT1, mTOR activation, and controlled reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, supporting T‐cell survival, Th1 differentiation and effector functions such as IFN‐γ production and cytotoxic mediator release. In tumour cells, cell‐intrinsic complement activation similarly engages C3aR and C5aR localised to endosomes, lysosomes, mitochondria and the endoplasmic reticulum. Downstream intracellular complosome signalling preferentially activates pro‐survival and pro‐tumorigenic pathways, including PI3K‐AKT‐mTOR signalling, NF‐κB and HIF‐1α transcriptional programmes, inflammasome activation and sustained ROS production. These pathways promote metabolic adaptation, resistance to stress, inflammatory signalling and tumour progression, while shaping an immunosuppressive microenvironment through recruitment of myeloid‐derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), regulatory T cells and M2‐polarised macrophages. Key unanswered questions include the temporal regulation of intracellular complement activation and the extent to which complosome signalling is conserved across tumour types and immune subsets. Created with BioRender.com.
Collectively, these findings support a model in which intracellular C3 and C5 cleavage initiates a cascade of receptor‐dependent signalling events that converge on metabolic reprogramming and transcriptional control. In lymphocytes, this integration canonically supports controlled effector differentiation and subsequent resolution, which may be dysregulated in cancer contexts, whereas in tumour cells, chronic complosome activation reinforces inflammatory signalling, metabolic autonomy and immune suppression. 9 , 57 Framing these observations within a unified mechanistic model clarifies how individual molecular findings relate to broader immune and tumour phenotypes.
4.2. Complosome, homeostasis and Th differentiation
Intracellular complement activation is an important mediator of T‐cell differentiation (particularly antitumour Th1 production, a subset of CD4+ T cells) and maintenance, tightly regulated by the production of interferon (IFN)‐γ and intracellular C3 cleavage. 58 , 59
Upon TCR and CTSL (ubiquitously expressed lysosomal endopeptidase) continuously cleaves intracellular stores of C3 into effector C3a and C3b, which are either exported to the cell surface or initiate intracellular transcription of interferon IFN‐γ following Th1 differentiation. 5 As such, C3‐deficient systems show impaired Th1 and reduced IL‐4/IL‐5/IL‐13/IFN‐γ after antigen stimulation. For example, C3‐knockout mice have been shown to secrete less IL‐4, IL‐5, IL‐13 and IFN‐γ in response to antigen stimulation, limiting potential antitumour Th1 response dependent on IFN‐γ. 60 In people, patients deficient in C3 or CD46 (co‐stimulator of IFN‐γ Th1 cell induction) have been shown to be deficient in Th1 cells and experience frequent infections. 61 , 62 Inhibition of C3 in vivo has also been shown to reduce Th cells producing IL‐4 (Th2), IL‐17 (Th17), IL‐2 and TNF‐α, reduce naïve CD4+ cells, and reduce the proliferation of both CD4+ and CD8+ cells. 63 Along with intracellular C3, C3aR and C5aR1 have also been shown to be required for adequate Th1 differentiation. Mice deficient in either C3aR or C5aR1 on T cells and APCs exhibited reduced Th1 expansion in multiple in vivo studies. 64 , 65 In a model of bacterial response to Listeria monocytogenes (LM), C3‐deficient mice showed blunted Ag‐specific CD4+/CD8+ expansion during infection. 66
In the context of cancer, elevated Th1 cells have been associated with a favourable prognosis in multiple cancer types, including NSCLC, ovarian cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, glioblastoma and CRC. 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 Thus, dysfunctional Th differentiation, mediated by dysfunctional intracellular complement signalling or C3 protein deficiency, is a plausible mechanism of immunosuppression in cancer.
Aside from differentiation, intracellular complement is an important component of homeostasis. Intracellular C3a has been shown to engage with C3aR on lysosomes to activate and sustain mTOR, a potent regulator of glycolysis, inhibitor of immunosuppressive Treg differentiation and promoter of T‐cell survival and homeostasis. 5 , 71 When C3a is blocked, swift T‐cell apoptosis occurs. 5 Importantly, extracellularly produced C3a from serum is unable to rescue and reinstate T‐cell proliferation in T cells deficient in intracellular C3/C3a, 5 indicating that the intracellular C3/C3a axis is necessary to maintain T‐cell function.
4.3. Complosome and metabolic reprogramming of T cells
T‐cell fate and effector functions of all immune cells are coupled to cellular metabolism, and there is growing evidence that shifts in metabolic pathways by the complosome shape adaptive immune responses of CD8+ cells. 72 In the inactive state, T cells preferentially rely on OXPHOS to generate ATP, 73 whereas activated and proliferating T cells are known to upregulate glycolysis. 73 , 74 Chang et al. demonstrated that when glycolysis is blocked in vitro by galactose, CD4+ T cells exhibit minimal IFN‐γ and IL‐2 production, stunting Th1 expansion, and CD8+ cells show reduced proliferation, showcasing the increased glycolytic need to sustain effector function. 75
There is growing evidence that the complosome may be implicated in this metabolic shift towards glycolysis, facilitated by intracellular stores of C3/C3a in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells (predominantly produced by lysosomes and the endoplasmic reticulum). 9 Complosome signalling contributes to this metabolic shift, as C3aR1/C3 engagement (in T‐cell lysosomal compartments) has been shown to maintain basal mTOR (regulator of glycolysis) and GLUT1 (glucose transporter 1) expression. 46 However, it is unknown if upregulation of C3aR or intracellular C3 drives aberrant hyperactivation of glycolysis. TCR activation results in the cleavage of stored intracellular C5 by cathepsin D, generating C5a. C5a binds to mitochondrial C5aR1 and has been shown to activate glycolytic flux in neutrophils, and it is likely this process also occurs in T cells due to similar C5aR1 expression levels; however, this has still to be demonstrated in the T‐cell population. 76 , 77
Stimulation of TCR and co‐stimulation of CD28 in CD4+ T cells shuttles intracellular C3b (produced from endogenous C3) to cell‐surface CD46. 78 CD46 couples complement to nutrient programmes: C3b–CD46 triggers γ‐secretase cleavage and CYT‐1 nuclear translocation, inducing LAT1, GLUT1 and LAMTOR1, thereby increasing amino acid/glucose uptake and supporting Th1 differentiation and IFN‐γ. 1 In a study by Kolev et al., activation of CYT‐1 was required for the activation of LAT1 and increased expression of GLUT1 and LAMTOR1 in human T cells. 46 When GLUT1 and LAT1 are upregulated, nutrient efflux enhances intracellular uptake of glucose and essential amino acids to support increased glycolysis and Th1 differentiation. 79 Unsurprisingly, T cells from patients with CD46 deficiency show dysfunctional Th1 cell induction and decreased glycolysis and OXPHOS. 80
Maintenance of T‐cell homeostasis by the complosome introduces a delicate balance of pro‐ and antitumorigenic signals. While Th1 expansion is associated with antitumour responses, the upregulation of GLUT1 and LAMTOR1 is associated with the induction of an immunosuppressive microenvironment and hyperproliferation in both immune and tumour cells. 81
4.4. C3aR/C5aR axis and immunosuppression
C3aR and C5aR are highly expressed on tumour and immune cells in preclinical and patient samples. 82 , 83 , 84 Interestingly, while preclinical studies suggest C3aR and C5aR are significantly upregulated in murine and patient tumours and tumour‐infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), peripheral CD8+ T cells from non‐tumour‐bearing mice exhibit a lack of expression of both receptors. 85 Activation of C5aR intracellularly by C5 cleavage by cathepsin D (CTSD) has been shown to promote carcinogenesis in CRC, via the formation of a C5a/C5aR1/KCTD5/cullin3/Roc‐1 complex, which stabilises β‐catenin and drives downstream oncogenic signalling. 76 The increased transcription of stabilised β‐catenin results in enhanced transcription of target oncogenes Cox2, cyclin D1 and c‐Myc. 76 Intrinsic WNT/β‐catenin signalling in tumour cells is also associated with poor T‐cell infiltration, and WNT/β‐catenin signalling in T cells has been shown to promote the expression of RORγt, a signature of Th17 cells (potent activators of Tregs). 86 , 87
Inflammasome crosstalk adds complexity to the immunosuppressive function of the complosome. The C5aR signalling axis is required for the assembly of the intracellular protein ‘inflammasome’ complex, which promotes maturation of pro‐inflammatory IL‐18, IL‐1β, release of pro‐inflammatory HMGB1 protein and caspase‐1‐dependent pyroptosis. 88 Although the inflammasome is canonically activated by extracellular PAMP recognition, the inflammasome is also activated via C5a binding intracellularly to the mitochondria, with mitochondrial C5aR2–ROS–NOX2 implicated in activation. 89
Inflammasomes play a nuanced role in cancer, and are associated with promoting angiogenesis and immunosuppression in some cancers, such as breast, 90 while supporting Th1 and NK cell activity in others, such as CRC. 91 In a murine C5aR2 knockdown model, C5aR2 deficiency inhibited NLRP3 activation in vivo, indicating the importance of intracellular complement signalling in inflammasome formation. 83
4.5. CD46 signalling
CD46, expressed on all nucleated cells, integrates complosome with T‐cell fate and antitumour response. In its inactivated state, CD46 maintains T‐cell homeostasis by binding to Jagged‐1, shunting Notch signalling and T‐cell differentiation. 61 When T cells are activated by the TCR, CD46 is shed, and Notch is induced, triggering Th1 differentiation. 61 , 92 CD46 also governs resolution of Th1 responses, driving IL‐10 and T‐cell plasticity. When CD46 is activated, IL‐10 is expressed in CD4+ cells and Th1 cells, inducing a switch in cytokine production from IFN‐γ to IL‐10. 93 Clinically, CD46 is generally overexpressed in cancers, including ovarian, hepatocellular and breast cancers. 94 Given its role in IL‐10 induction, dysregulated CD46–IL‐2R/Notch axes may contribute to tumour immune evasion.
5. COMPLOSOME AND IMMUNE CELL DYNAMICS
5.1. Regulatory T cells
Regulatory T cells (Tregs) are thought to be in part regulated by the complosome and complement proteins, and play important roles in maintaining self‐tolerance (Figure 4). However, in cancer, Tregs promote tumorigenesis via the production of suppressive cytokines (TGFβ and IL‐10) and stimulation of angiogenesis via the secretion of VEGF. 95 Many tumour tissues are enriched in immunosuppressive Tregs, and having a higher proportion of Tregs is associated with worse overall survival and risk of recurrence in multiple cancers, including CRC, NSCLC and triple‐negative breast cancer (TNBC). 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102
FIGURE 4.

Overview of immune mechanisms regulated by intracellular complement proteins. In T cells, TAMs and Tregs, complosome signalling drives metabolic reprogramming, inflammation and immune suppression. Neutrophils and MDSCs are activated to support chemotaxis and pro‐tumour signalling, while NK cells’ cytotoxic function is inhibited. Additionally, CAFs are primed by intracellular C3 to secrete factors including CXCL12 and TGFβ, enhancing immune evasion by shunting T‐cell expansion and promoting tumour growth.
Higher numbers of FOXP3+ Tregs were observed in C3‐deficient mice, suggesting C3 may contribute to blocking Treg differentiation. 103 Elevated Treg populations have also been observed in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients with lower plasma levels of C3 and C4. 104 Interestingly, complement C4 protein has been shown to induce Treg differentiation directly in an in vitro model, where C4 was co‐cultured with T cells and DCs isolated from patients with SLE. 105 While C3 and C4 are likely linked to Treg expansion, the mechanisms regulating this association remain largely unknown.
5.2. B cells
B cells can be pro‐ or antitumour depending on the microenvironmental context. High B cell infiltration is often associated with longer survival in breast, ovarian, renal and lung cancers, in part through the formation of tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS) with DCs and T cells that enhance antigen presentation and T‐cell priming. 106 , 107 TLS are lymphoid aggregates that form de novo in non‐lymphoid tissues in response to chronic inflammation or cancer, and are commonly found within and around cancer tissue. 108 Conversely, B regulatory cells (Bregs)—driven by cytokines, such as IL‐21, IL‐6, IL‐33, IL‐35, IL‐1β and IFN‐α, secrete IL‐10 and promote immunosuppression. 109 , 110 , 111
Within this spectrum, the complosome is a core regulator of B‐cell physiology. B cells contain intracellular C3/C3a and can generate C3 autocrinally, which is necessary for B cell self‐renewal and survival; serum‐derived C3 can also be imported and processed via cathepsin L to C3b/C3a, with nuclear entry reported for exogenous C3. 9 , 10 , 112 B cells express C3aR1/C5aR1, and genetic disruption of these receptors abrogates mTOR activation after BCR/CD40 stimulation, leading to premature germinal‐centre collapse and defective maturation—highlighting a requirement for complosome signalling in B‐cell activation. 113 , 114
Complosome signalling in B cells has also been associated with epigenetic modulation of gene expression. C3a inhibits histone H1 binding to DNA in a dose‐dependent manner. 10 In cancer, the knockdown of H1 in breast cancer cells has been associated with altered gene expression, type I IFN production and a hyperproliferative phenotype. 115
5.3. DCs
DCs orchestrate antitumour T cell responses through antigen presentation and co‐stimulation, and they express C3aR along with complement regulators CD49, CD55 and CD59. 116 , 117 Intracellular deficiency of C3 has been associated with impaired DC differentiation; however, the mechanism by which this occurs remains poorly understood. 118 DCs have produced and synthesised C3 intracellularly in vivo and in vitro, and C3‐inhibited DCs exhibit reduced ability to stimulate alloreactive T cells, polarise CD4+ T cells to a Th2 phenotype and drive Treg expansion. 119
Beyond differentiation, the complosome in DCs modulates antigen handling and the tempo of T cell priming. Whereas extracellular opsonisation tags targets via C3b for phagocytosis, DCs themselves display C3 fragments, enabling a form of intracellular opsonisation that shapes antigen processing. 120 In apoptotic cell models, C3‐sufficient DCs retained intact cargo (lysosomal debris) longer, indicating that C3 fragments act as chaperones of phagosome maturation. Conversely, C3‐deficient DCs digested cargo rapidly and elicited diminished CD4+ proliferation, effectively pacing down the T cell response. 121 Unsurprisingly, T cell response was ‘paced’, as DCs deficient in C3 consumed the target antigen faster and elicited diminished CD4+ T cell proliferation compared to the C3‐sufficient DCs, which had not digested the apoptotic cell by endpoint and elicited a more robust T cell response. 121 These data support a role for intracellular C3 in regulating antigen‐trafficking kinetics and MHC‐II exposure, with potential implications for cancer: reduced DC C3 could truncate antigen presentation and blunt antitumour immunity.
5.4. Neutrophils
As the most abundant innate immune cells in bone marrow and blood, neutrophils have also been associated with promoting cancer progression and poor prognosis when polarised to a tumour‐associated ‘TAN’ state. 122 , 123 TANs inhibit CD8+ T cells and secrete MMP9, VEGF and Arg1. 124 Higher neutrophil infiltration in tumour stroma is associated with poorer prognosis in a variety of cancers, including breast, lung and glioma. 125 , 126 The link between complement and neutrophils was first identified in 1993, when C3 was characterised as a strong chemoattractant for neutrophils in vivo. 127 The role of C3 in neutrophil chemotaxis was validated more recently in a murine model of acute pancreatitis, where C3 expression was required for the recruitment of neutrophils to the pancreas. 128 As an innate immune cell, neutrophils are known to have potent intracellular stores of C3, and intracellular complement likely mediates neutrophil cytoskeletal maintenance. 129 In a study assessing neutrophils from healthy controls and SLE patients, neutrophils from healthy patients exhibited upregulated C3 and were associated with the preservation of cytoskeletal organisation. 130 In the context of SLE, cytoskeletal abnormalities impair TCR signalling and immune synapse formation between T cells and APCs, which contribute to disease progression. 131 However, in cancer, increased C3 may also promote a pro‐tumour TAN phenotype. In a C3‐knockout murine model of ischaemia‐reperfusion injury, C3 was a requirement for increased neutrophil recruitment to the injury site and neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) formation. 132 NETs are composed of condensed nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, proteases and pro‐inflammatory mediators, which may promote EMT and/or activate dormant cancer cells. 133
5.5. Natural killer cells
Natural killer (NK) cells limit tumour growth via granzyme/perforin‐mediated cell killing and the production of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. Like CD8+ cells, NK cells can become dysfunctional in the TME as a result of stromal interactions with immunosuppressive cancer‐associated fibroblasts (CAFs), tumour‐associated macrophages (TAMs) and MDSCs, preventing cancer cell killing. 134
NK cells highly express C3aR, C5aR, C5aR2, CR3 and CR4; however, it is unknown whether NK cells can secrete or produce C5 and/or C3 intracellularly. 135 Interestingly, in a C3‐knockout murine melanoma model, C3 deficiency resulted in increased antitumour immunity of NK cells and reduced tumour growth. 136 Depletion of C3 has also been shown to enhance the ability of target cells coated with rituximab to activate NK cells and improve the efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapy in a murine lymphoma model. 137 Similarly, C3aR signalling has been shown to inhibit NK infiltration in vivo by triggering the formation of high‐affinity LFA‐1, a critical lymphocyte trafficking integrin, suggesting that C3/C3aR blockade may support anticancer NK responses. 138
5.6. Macrophages
Macrophages are early, prevalent TME infiltrates. When polarised to M2‐like (pro‐tumour) TAMs, they secrete immunosuppressive cytokines and ROS, and higher TAM burden predicts poorer outcomes in pancreatic, gastric and breast cancers. 139 Higher infiltration of TAMs has been associated with poorer prognosis in numerous cancers, including pancreatic, gastric and breast cancer. 140 , 141 , 142
Intracellular C3 in tumour cells is associated with the promotion of an immunosuppressive macrophage phenotype. Zha et al. demonstrated that intracellular activation of tumour‐derived C3 (resulting in the intracellular generation of C3a and C3b) promoted the generation of TAMs via activation of the C3a–C3aR–PI3K pathway in vivo. 143 Importantly, the activation of PI3K has been shown to activate other pro‐tumorigenic pathways in TAMs, such as NF‐κB, which functions to sustain hyperproliferation and immunosuppression. 144 This generation of M2‐like macrophages was also associated with the suppression of CD8+ T cells, a common interaction between TAMs and T cells. Further, when C3 was deleted in high C3‐expressing tumour‐bearing mice (implanted with 4T1 mammary carcinoma cells), mice were sensitised to anti‐PD1 therapy, and reduced tumour burden was observed. 143 The induction of C3 gene transcription can also be activated by the binding of LFA‐1, and LFA‐1 activation may inhibit NK cells and promote M2 macrophages simultaneously. 145
Additionally, as previously described in T cells, macrophages and monocytes use autonomous, constitutive and intracellular C3 and C5 activation (engaging with mitochondrial C5aR) to sustain metabolic reprogramming and inflammasome formation. 1 , 77 As demonstrated by Niyonzima et al., continuously synthesised intracellular C5 shifts ATP production towards ROS generation, aerobic glycolysis and promotes IL‐1β expression in macrophages. 77 , 146
5.7. MDSCs
MDSCs are another prevalent immune cell population in the TME, implicated in immunosuppression and carcinogenesis. Like Tregs, they restrain CD8+ T‐cell expansion via IL‐10, arginase and ROS, and express high levels of C5aR1. 49 , 147 C5a, generated intracellularly and/or locally within tumours, acts as a potent chemoattractant; once released, it recruits MDSCs to tumour and stromal sites and directly signals via C5aR1 on MDSCs to enhance suppressive function. 49 , 148 , 149 Consistent with local production, C5/C5a is detected within the TME and is secreted by phagocytes. 48 , 150 In cervical cancer models, C5aR1 sufficiency was required for the intratumoral accumulation of polymorphonuclear MDSCs. 48 In colon cancer, anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 therapy increased C5a intratumorally, which amplified MDSC inhibitory activity and boosted ROS/NOS/arginase output; C5a/C5aR1 blockade restored antitumour effects of checkpoint therapy. 151 Lastly, in hepatocellular carcinoma cells, C3 secretion induced by PIWIL1 gene activation (upregulated in 80.4% of colon cancer cases), activated oncogenic p38 and MAPK signalling in MDSCs. 46 , 152
5.8. Fibroblasts and CAFs
Cancer‐associated fibroblasts (CAFs) are abundant stromal cells in the TME. Recent work shows that intracellular C3 can be cleaved to generate C3a/C3b, which then signals autocrinally via C3aR1 (endosomal or plasma‐membrane) to drive ‘tissue priming’ and metabolic reprogramming. 51 , 153 , 154 Primed fibroblasts increase pro‐inflammatory IL‐6/IL‐8 and CCL2/CXCL12, switch to aerobic glycolysis, and encode transcriptional/epigenetic memory of past inflammatory events, heightening responsiveness to later stimuli, a phenotype commonly observed in autoimmunity and chronic inflammation, and is increasingly implicated in tumour‐associated stromal activation. 155 , 156 In synovial models, tissue priming depends on intracellular C3/C3a, drives glycolysis, and activates mTOR and HIF‐1α. 154 , 157 In the context of cancer, intracellularly generated and secreted C3a can promote cancer invasion and metastasis via the activation of CAFs in murine models. 158
Concordant data in gastric cancer models show CAF‐intrinsic C3 associates with NF‐κB upregulation, CD8+ dysfunction and therapeutic resistance. Patient samples also revealed an association between increased C3+ CAFs in the stroma and stromal infiltration of immunosuppressive M2 macrophages. 159 Targeting the NF‐κB/C3 pathway by silencing p65 through siRNA significantly decreased C3 secretion in CAFs; however, the exact intracellular cues that drive initial C3 cleavage are currently unknown. 159 Taken together, CAF complosome activation, via intracellular C3 cleavage and autocrine C3aR1/CD46 signalling, drives metabolic rewiring, myeloid recruitment and broad immunosuppression within the TME. 51 , 154 , 156
6. THERAPEUTIC TARGETING OF THE COMPLOSOME‐IMMUNE AXIS IN CANCER
Given its roles in tumorigenesis and immune regulation, the complosome is an attractive therapeutic axis, though no complement‐directed drugs are yet approved in oncology. 160 , 161 While anticancer complement‐inhibitory drugs are in development, most aim to target extracellular proteins, leaving the intracellular arm relatively unexplored. 162
One leading preclinical strategy is C3aR/C5aR blockade combined with traditional immune checkpoint inhibitors. In lung cancer models, C5a–C5aR1 antagonism plus anti‐PD‐1 reduced tumour growth, prolonged survival, decreased MDSCs and restored CD8+ effector function. 82 , 163 , 164 , 165 In melanoma, co‐delivery of C3aR1/C5aR1 antagonists with anti‐PD‐1 produced synergy beyond PD‐1 alone, replicated across studies. 82 , 151 , 165 It has also been demonstrated that C5aR blockade may reprogramme M2 TAMs and synergise with anti‐PD‐1 therapy. 166 In a gastric cancer model, higher intratumoral densities of C5aR1+ TAMs, the compartment with the strongest C5aR1 signal, associate with worse overall survival and chemoresistance. 167 Selective C5aR1 antagonism reduced tumour proliferation, lowered IL‐6/IL‐10/TGF‐β from TAMs (consistent with M1 repolarisation), and reinvigorated CD8+ cytotoxicity in vivo. 166
Complement inhibition can also potentiate cytotoxic therapies. Radiotherapy increases intratumoral C3/C3b and C3a/C5a in ovarian tumour models 168 ; In CRC, systemic C5aR1 antagonism improved radiation responses. 169 Systemic blockade of C5aR1 has also shown preclinical synergistic effects with chemotherapy. C5aR1 blockade plus paclitaxel enhanced CD8+ proliferation/cytotoxicity in an IFN‐γ‐dependent manner in SCC. 50 Data from our group link complement to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) response across gastrointestinal cancers. 170 , 171 In oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), it was demonstrated that pretreatment serum levels of complement anaphylatoxins (C3a/C4a) predict poor response to nCRT and adverse outcomes. 170 More recently, in rectal cancer, we reported that complement is increased in radioresistant rectal cancer cells and that C3 functionally modulates the radioresponse in vitro, with inhibition of C3 reversing a radioresistant phenotype, concomitant with increased radiation‐induced DNA damage and a shift towards a more radiosensitive cell cycle phenotype. 172 Collectively, these findings implicate complement, particularly C3 and its downstream effectors, as a determinant of resistance to cytotoxic therapy and a rational target for radio‐chemo‐immunotherapy combinations.
Therapeutically, translating these preclinical studies into the clinic largely depends on agent selection and receptor selectivity, access to intracellular complement pools and delivery to relevant cell types. Current tools, including C5aR1 antagonists (PMX53, PMX205, avacopan/CCX168) and C3aR1 tool/antagonist compounds (SB290157, context‐dependent pharmacology), primarily engage cell‐surface receptors. 165 , 173 , 174 , 175 The dual small‐molecule DF2593A blocks C3aR1/C5aR1 in vitro, and JPE1375 shows activity against C5aR1, including mitochondrial pools in select settings. 77 , 176 However, selective access to intracellular C3 versus extracellular C3 is limited. 1
Despite its therapeutic promise, targeting intracellular complosome signalling presents substantial translational challenges. Key barriers include the difficulty of achieving subcellular delivery to intracellular receptors such as C5aR1, 177 tumour microenvironment heterogeneity that may drive variable therapeutic responses, and the risk of unintended immune perturbation due to the pleiotropic roles of complement in host defence. 178 , 179 Additionally, most available complement inhibitors were developed to neutralise extracellular pathways and may not effectively engage intracellular targets. Emerging strategies to overcome these challenges include tumour microenvironment‐responsive nanocarriers, 180 cell‐type‐restricted delivery platforms, 181 and biased receptor modulators designed to selectively inhibit pathogenic intracellular signalling while preserving homeostatic immune functions. 182 Advances in single‐cell profiling and spatial transcriptomics may further enable rational patient stratification and guide precision targeting of complosome‐driven tumour states.
Beyond therapy, the complosome shows promise as a biomarker. Profiling a patient's intracellular complosome and ‘complotype’ (complement‐gene polymorphisms) may inform prognosis and treatment selection. 172 , 183 Potential approaches include quantification of intracellular C3 or C5 expression, assessment of C3a/C5a signalling signatures, or integration of complotype variants with transcriptional and metabolic profiling. 36 , 43 However, standardised detection methods, clinically actionable thresholds, and prospective validation in patient cohorts remain largely unexplored, underscoring the need for translational studies to define the clinical utility of complosome‐based biomarkers. 184 , 185 While systemic complement and complosome testing are not yet routinely included in oncology patient profiling, given the role of the complosome in cancer and immune regulation, complosome proteins may be important novel biomarkers in prognostic, diagnostic and clinical decision‐making. Prospective evaluation within oncology workflows, especially among cancer types where early diagnosis is challenging, such as OAC, is warranted.
7. CONCLUSION
The complosome represents an emergent axis of tumour‐immune regulation with relevance to cancer progression, treatment resistance and inflammatory comorbidity. In this review, we highlight evidence across preclinical models indicating that intracellular complement shapes T‐cell expansion and differentiation, promotes immunosuppression through MDSC, macrophage and CAF recruitment/polarisation, and reprogrammes metabolism via mTOR activation, glycolytic flux and ROS/NOS. Therapeutic strategies to modulate complosome C3 activity, particularly through C3aR and C5aR antagonism, hold promise in reducing immunosuppression and pro‐tumour metabolic reprogramming in immune cells. Further research is required to unravel the exact mechanisms underlying intracellular C3 cleavage and complosome activation in tumour cells and immune cells. Future research priorities include (i) achieving compartmental specificity (selective access to intracellular vs. extracellular complement); (ii) building pharmacodynamic endpoints (myeloid trafficking; T‐cell metabolism/exhaustion) into study and trial design; and (iii) standardising complement/complosome biomarker panels for routine oncology workflows.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
A.B., J.L. and N.L.L. conceptualised the review. A.B. wrote the original draft manuscript and prepared the figures. All authors read and edited the final version of the manuscript.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
ETHICS STATEMENT
The authors have nothing to report.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A.B. was funded with a George J. Mitchell scholarship by the U.S.–Ireland Alliance and the M.Sc. in Translational Oncology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. N.L.L. was supported by a Health Research Board (Ireland) EIA Award: EIA‐2017‐020. U.S.–Ireland Alliance, Award: George J. Mitchell scholarship; Health Research Board (Ireland) EIA, Award: EIA‐2017‐020.
REFERENCES
- 1. West EE, Kemper C. Complosome—the intracellular complement system. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2023;19(7):426‐439. doi:10.1038/s41581‐023‐00704‐1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Manderson AP, Pickering MC, Botto M, Walport MJ, Parish CR. Continual low‐level activation of the classical complement pathway. J Exp Med. 2001;194(6):747‐756. doi:10.1084/jem.194.6.747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Lubbers R, van Essen MF, van Kooten C, Trouw LA. Production of complement components by cells of the immune system. Clin Exp Immunol. 2017;188(2):183‐194. doi:10.1111/cei.12952 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Khan MA, Assiri AM, Broering DC. Complement and macrophage crosstalk during the process of angiogenesis in tumor progression. J Biomed Sci. 2015;22(1):58. doi:10.1186/s12929‐015‐0151‐1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Liszewski MK, Kolev M, Le Friec G, et al. Intracellular complement activation sustains T cell homeostasis and mediates effector differentiation. Immunity. 2013;39(6):1143‐1157. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2013.10.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Chen S, Zhang J, Chen J, et al. Compromised C3b‐VSIG4 axis between decidual NK cells and macrophages contributes to recurrent spontaneous abortion. J Transl Med. 2024;22(1):1017. doi:10.1186/s12967‐024‐05829‐w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Hess C, Kemper C. Complement‐mediated regulation of metabolism and basic cellular processes. Immunity. 2016;45(2):240‐254. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2016.08.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Reichhardt MP, Meri S. Intracellular complement activation—an alarm raising mechanism? Semin Immunol. 2018;38:54‐62. doi:10.1016/j.smim.2018.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. West EE, Kolev M, Kemper C. Complement and the regulation of T cell responses. Annu Rev Immunol. 2018;36:309‐338. doi:10.1146/annurev‐immunol‐042617‐053245 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Kremlitzka M, Nowacka AA, Mohlin F, Bompada P, De Marinis Y, Blom A. Interaction of serum‐derived and internalised C3 with DNA in human B cells—a potential involvement in regulation of gene transcription. Front Immunol. 2019;10:493. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2019.00493 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Lin ST, Liang ZQ, Chen XY, et al. Detection of complement C1q B chain overexpression and its latent molecular mechanisms in cervical cancer tissues using multiple methods. Int J Genomics. 2022;2022:8775330. doi:10.1155/2022/8775330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Bulla R, Tripodo C, Rami D, et al. C1q acts in the tumour microenvironment as a cancer‐promoting factor independently of complement activation. Nat Commun. 2016;7:10346. doi:10.1038/ncomms10346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Bouwens TA, Trouw LA, Veerhuis R, Dirven CM, Lamfers ML, Al‐Khawaja H. Complement activation in glioblastoma multiforme pathophysiology: evidence from serum levels and presence of complement activation products in tumortissue. J Neuroimmunol. 2015;278:271‐276. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroim.2014.11.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Riihilä P, Viiklepp K, Nissinen L, et al. Tumour‐cell‐derived complement components C1r and C1s promote growth of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182(3):658‐670. doi:10.1111/bjd.18095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Daugan MV, Revel M, Russick J, et al. Complement C1s and C4d as prognostic biomarkers in renal cancer: emergence of noncanonical functions of C1s. Cancer Immunol Res. 2021;9(8):891‐908. doi:10.1158/2326‐6066.Cir‐20‐0532 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Grzmil M, Voigt S, Thelen P, Hemmerlein B, Helmke K, Burfeind P. Up‐regulated expression of the MAT‐8 gene in prostate cancer and its siRNA‐mediated inhibition of expression induces a decrease in proliferation of human prostate carcinoma cells. Int J Oncol. 2004;24(1):97‐105. doi:10.3892/ijo.24.1.97 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Zhao P, Wu J, Lu F, et al. The imbalance in the complement system and its possible physiological mechanisms in patients with lung cancer. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):201. doi:10.1186/s12885‐019‐5422‐x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Yuan K, Ye J, Liu Z, et al. Complement C3 overexpression activates JAK2/STAT3 pathway and correlates with gastric cancer progression. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2020;39(1):9. doi:10.1186/s13046‐019‐1514‐3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Suzuki R, Takagi T, Sugimoto M, et al. Intracellular C3 modulates EMT via the Akt/Smad pathway in pancreatic cancer cells. Anticancer Res. 2022;42(12):5743‐5750. doi:10.21873/anticanres.16081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Chen J, Wu W, Zhen C, et al. Expression and clinical significance of complement C3, complement C4b1 and apolipoprotein E in pancreatic cancer. Oncol Lett. 2013;6(1):43‐48. doi:10.3892/ol.2013.1326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Fan Z, Qin J, Wang D, Geng S. Complement C3a promotes proliferation, migration and stemness in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. J Cell Mol Med. 2019;23(5):3097‐3107. doi:10.1111/jcmm.13959 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Zhang X, Sun L. Anaphylatoxin C3a: a potential biomarker for esophageal cancer diagnosis. Mol Clin Oncol. 2018;8(2):315‐319. doi:10.3892/mco.2017.1524 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Chung L, Moore K, Phillips L, Boyle FM, Marsh DJ, Baxter RC. Novel serum protein biomarker panel revealed by mass spectrometry and its prognostic value in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(3):R63. doi:10.1186/bcr3676 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Wang X, Hao Y, Chen J, et al. Nuclear complement C3b promotes paclitaxel resistance by assembling the SIN3A/HDAC1/2 complex in non‐small cell lung cancer. Cell Death Dis. 2023;14(6):351. doi:10.1038/s41419‐023‐05869‐y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Lu ZL, Chen YJ, Jing XY, Wang NN, Zhang T, Hu CJ. Detection and identification of serum peptides biomarker in papillary thyroid cancer. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:1581‐1587. doi:10.12659/msm.907768 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Daugan MV, Revel M, Russick J, et al. Complement C1s and C4d as prognostic biomarkers in renal cancer: emergence of noncanonical functions of C1s. Cancer Immunol Res. 2021;9(8):891‐908. doi:10.1158/2326‐6066.Cir‐20‐0532 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Chong PK, Lee H, Loh MC, et al. Upregulation of plasma C9 protein in gastric cancer patients. Proteomics. 2010;10(18):3210‐3221. doi:10.1002/pmic.201000127 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Shang Y, Chai N, Gu Y, et al. Systematic immunohistochemical analysis of the expression of CD46, CD55, and CD59 in colon cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(7):910‐919. doi:10.5858/arpa.2013‐0064‐OA [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Do MH, To PK, Cho YS, et al. Targeting CD46 enhances anti‐tumoral activity of adenovirus type 5 for bladder cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(9):2694. doi:10.3390/ijms19092694 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Hong Q, Sze CI, Lin SR, et al. Complement C1q activates tumor suppressor WWOX to induce apoptosis in prostate cancer cells. PLoS One. 2009;4(6):e5755. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005755 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Kim Y‐S, Hwan Do J, Bae S, Bae D‐H, Shick Ahn W. Identification of differentially expressed genes using an annealing control primer system in stage III serous ovarian carcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2010;10(1):576. doi:10.1186/1471‐2407‐10‐576 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Li W, Liu Z, Liang B, et al. Identification of core genes in ovarian cancer by an integrative meta‐analysis. J Ovarian Res. 2018;11(1):94. doi:10.1186/s13048‐018‐0467‐z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Kapka‐Skrzypczak L, Wolinska E, Szparecki G, Wilczynski GM, Czajka M, Skrzypczak M. CD55, CD59, factor H and factor H‐like 1 gene expression analysis in tumors of the ovary and corpus uteri origin. Immunol Lett. 2015;167(2):67‐71. doi:10.1016/j.imlet.2015.06.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Hsu YF, Ajona D, Corrales L, et al. Complement activation mediates cetuximab inhibition of non‐small cell lung cancer tumor growth in vivo. Mol Cancer. 2010;9:139. doi:10.1186/1476‐4598‐9‐139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Fan Z, Qin J, Wang D, Geng S. Complement C3a promotes proliferation, migration and stemness in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. J Cell Mol Med. 2019;23(5):3097‐3107. doi:10.1111/jcmm.13959 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Hameed BH, Abdulsatar Al‐Rayahi I, Muhsin SS. The preoperative serum levels of the anaphylatoxins C3a and C5a and their association with clinico‐pathological factors in breast cancer patients. Arch Razi Inst. 2022;77(5):1873‐1879. doi:10.22092/ari.2022.358193.2173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Kleczko EK, Poczobutt JM, Navarro AC, et al. Upregulation of complement proteins in lung cancer cells mediates tumor progression. Front Oncol. 2022;12:1045690. doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.1045690 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. He XS, Zou SY, Yao JL, et al. Transcriptomic analysis identifies complement component 3 as a potential predictive biomarker for chemotherapy resistance in colorectal cancer. Front Mol Biosci. 2021;8:763652. doi:10.3389/fmolb.2021.763652 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Freeley S, Kemper C, Le Friec G. The “ins and outs” of complement‐driven immune responses. Immunol Rev. 2016;274(1):16‐32. doi:10.1111/imr.12472 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Yang R, Fu D, Liao A. The role of complement in tumor immune tolerance and drug resistance: a double‐edged sword. Front Immunol. 2025;16:1529184. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2025.1529184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Garlanda C, Dambra M, Magrini E. Interplay between the complement system and other immune pathways in the tumor microenvironment. Semin Immunol. 2025;78:101951. doi:10.1016/j.smim.2025.101951 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Afzali B, Singh P, Tajmul M, Kemper C. Inside job: roles of intracellular C3. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2025;156(2):215‐223. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2025.03.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Lawal B, Tseng S‐H, Olugbodi JO, et al. Pan‐cancer analysis of immune complement signature C3/C5/C3AR1/C5AR1 in association with tumor immune evasion and therapy resistance. Cancers. 2021;13(16):4124. doi:10.3390/cancers13164124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Riazi Rad F, Ajdary S, Omranipour R, Alimohammadian MH, Hassan ZM. Comparative analysis of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in tumor tissues, lymph nodes and the peripheral blood from patients with breast cancer. Iran Biomed J. 2015;19(1):35‐44. doi:10.6091/ibj.1289.2014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Hansen CB, Willer A, Bayarri‐Olmos R, Kemper C, Garred P. Expression of complement C3, C5, C3aR and C5aR1 genes in resting and activated CD4+ T cells. Immunobiology. 2019;224(2):307‐315. doi:10.1016/j.imbio.2018.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Kolev M, Dimeloe S, Le Friec G, et al. Complement regulates nutrient influx and metabolic reprogramming during Th1 cell responses. Immunity. 2015;42(6):1033‐1047. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2015.05.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Kopf M, Abel B, Gallimore A, Carroll M, Bachmann MF. Complement component C3 promotes T‐cell priming and lung migration to control acute influenza virus infection. Nat Med. 2002;8(4):373‐378. doi:10.1038/nm0402‐373 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Markiewski MM, DeAngelis RA, Benencia F, et al. Modulation of the antitumor immune response by complement. Nat Immunol. 2008;9(11):1225‐1235. doi:10.1038/ni.1655 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Vadrevu SK, Chintala NK, Sharma SK, et al. Complement c5a receptor facilitates cancer metastasis by altering T‐cell responses in the metastatic niche. Cancer Res. 2014;74(13):3454‐3465. doi:10.1158/0008‐5472.Can‐14‐0157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Medler TR, Murugan D, Horton W, et al. Complement C5a fosters squamous carcinogenesis and limits T cell response to chemotherapy. Cancer Cell. 2018;34(4):561‐578. doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2018.09.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Davidson S, Efremova M, Riedel A, et al. Single‐cell RNA sequencing reveals a dynamic stromal niche that supports tumor growth. Cell Rep. 2020;31(7):107628. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107628 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Peng W, McKenzie JA, Hwu P. Complementing T‐cell function: an inhibitory role of the complement system in T‐cell‐mediated antitumor immunity. Cancer Discov. 2016;6(9):953‐955. doi:10.1158/2159‐8290.Cd‐16‐0698 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Noris M, Remuzzi G. Overview of complement activation and regulation. Semin Nephrol. 2013;33(6):479‐492. doi:10.1016/j.semnephrol.2013.08.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Senent Y, Tavira B, Pio R, Ajona D. The complement system as a regulator of tumor‐promoting activities mediated by myeloid‐derived suppressor cells. Cancer Lett. 2022;549:215900. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2022.215900 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Kolev M, Das M, Gerber M, Baver S, Deschatelets P, Markiewski MM. Inside‐out of complement in cancer. Front Immunol. 2022;13:931273. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.931273 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Piao C, Zhang WM, Li TT, et al. Complement 5a stimulates macrophage polarization and contributes to tumor metastases of colon cancer. Exp Cell Res. 2018;366(2):127‐138. doi:10.1016/j.yexcr.2018.03.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Harris CL, Heurich M, Cordoba SRd, Morgan BP. The complotype: dictating risk for inflammation and infection. Trends Immunol. 2012;33(10):513‐521. doi:10.1016/j.it.2012.06.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Xiao F, Guo J, Tomlinson S, Yuan G, He S. The role of the complosome in health and disease. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1146167. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1146167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Nishimura T, Iwakabe K, Sekimoto M, et al. Distinct role of antigen‐specific T helper type 1 (Th1) and Th2 cells in tumor eradication in vivo. J Exp Med. 1999;190(5):617‐627. doi:10.1084/jem.190.5.617 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Yalcindag A, He R, Laouini D, et al. The complement component C3 plays a critical role in both Th1 and Th2 responses to antigen. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;117(6):1455‐1461. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2006.01.048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Le Friec G, Sheppard D, Whiteman P, et al. The CD46‐Jagged1 interaction is critical for human TH1 immunity. Nat Immunol. 2012;13(12):1213‐1221. doi:10.1038/ni.2454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Ghannam A, Fauquert JL, Thomas C, Kemper C, Drouet C. Human complement C3 deficiency: th1 induction requires T cell‐derived complement C3a and CD46 activation. Mol Immunol. 2014;58(1):98‐107. doi:10.1016/j.molimm.2013.11.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Ma Q, Li D, Carreño R, et al. Complement component C3 mediates Th1/Th17 polarization in human T‐cell activation and cutaneous GVHD. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014;49(7):972‐976. doi:10.1038/bmt.2014.75 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Lalli PN, Strainic MG, Yang M, Lin F, Medof ME, Heeger PS. Locally produced C5a binds to T cell‐expressed C5aR to enhance effector T‐cell expansion by limiting antigen‐induced apoptosis. Blood. 2008;112(5):1759‐1766. doi:10.1182/blood‐2008‐04‐151068 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Strainic MG, Liu J, Huang D, et al. Locally produced complement fragments C5a and C3a provide both costimulatory and survival signals to naive CD4+ T cells. Immunity. 2008;28(3):425‐435. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2008.02.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Nakayama Y, Kim SI, Kim EH, Lambris JD, Sandor M, Suresh M. C3 promotes expansion of CD8+ and CD4+ T cells in a Listeria monocytogenes infection. J Immunol. 2009;183(5):2921‐2931. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.0801191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Karachaliou N, Gonzalez‐Cao M, Crespo G, et al. Interferon gamma, an important marker of response to immune checkpoint blockade in non‐small cell lung cancer and melanoma patients. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2018;10:1758834017749748. doi:10.1177/1758834017749748 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Zhang L, Conejo‐Garcia JR, Katsaros D, et al. Intratumoral T cells, recurrence, and survival in epithelial ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(3):203‐213. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa020177 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Huang Y, Ma C, Zhang Q, et al. CD4+ and CD8+ T cells have opposing roles in breast cancer progression and outcome. Oncotarget. 2015;6(19):17462‐17478. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.3958 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Slattery ML, Lundgreen A, Bondurant KL, Wolff RK. Interferon‐signaling pathway: associations with colon and rectal cancer risk and subsequent survival. Carcinogenesis. 2011;32(11):1660‐1667. doi:10.1093/carcin/bgr189 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Chi H. Regulation and function of mTOR signalling in T cell fate decisions. Nat Rev Immunol. 2012;12(5):325‐338. doi:10.1038/nri3198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Ganeshan K, Chawla A. Metabolic regulation of immune responses. Annu Rev Immunol. 2014;32:609‐634. doi:10.1146/annurev‐immunol‐032713‐120236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. van der Windt GJ, Pearce EL. Metabolic switching and fuel choice during T‐cell differentiation and memory development. Immunol Rev. 2012;249(1):27‐42. doi:10.1111/j.1600‐065X.2012.01150.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Cao J, Liao S, Zeng F, Liao Q, Luo G, Zhou Y. Effects of altered glycolysis levels on CD8+ T cell activation and function. Cell Death Dis. 2023;14(7):407. doi:10.1038/s41419‐023‐05937‐3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Chang CH, Curtis JD, Maggi LB, et al. Posttranscriptional control of T cell effector function by aerobic glycolysis. Cell. 2013;153(6):1239‐1251. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Ding P, Xu Y, Li L, et al. Intracellular complement C5a/C5aR1 stabilises β‐catenin to promote colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell Rep. 2022;39(9):110851. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110851 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Niyonzima N, Rahman J, Kunz N, et al. Mitochondrial C5aR1 activity in macrophages controls IL‐1β production underlying sterile inflammation. Sci Immunol. 2021;6(66):eabf2489. doi:10.1126/sciimmunol.abf2489 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Beyersdorf N, Kerkau T, Hünig T. CD28 co‐stimulation in T‐cell homeostasis: a recent perspective. Immunotargets Ther. 2015;4:111‐122. doi:10.2147/itt.S61647 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Sampedro‐Núñez M, Bouthelier A, Serrano‐Somavilla A, et al. LAT‐1 and GLUT‐1 carrier expression and its prognostic value in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(10):2968. doi:10.3390/cancers12102968 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. King BC, Renström E, Blom AM. Intracellular cytosolic complement component C3 regulates cytoprotective autophagy in pancreatic beta cells by interaction with ATG16L1. Autophagy. 2019;15(5):919‐921. doi:10.1080/15548627.2019.1580515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Di Dedda C, Vignali D, Piemonti L, Monti P. Pharmacological targeting of GLUT1 to control autoreactive T cell responses. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(19):4962. doi:10.3390/ijms20194962 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Wang Y, Zhang H, He Y‐W. The complement receptors C3aR and C5aR are a new class of immune checkpoint receptor in cancer immunotherapy. Front Immunol. 2019;10:1574. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2019.01574 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Cho MS, Vasquez HG, Rupaimoole R, et al. Autocrine effects of tumor‐derived complement. Cell Rep. 2014;6(6):1085‐1095. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2014.02.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Reis ES, Mastellos DC, Ricklin D, Mantovani A, Lambris JD. Complement in cancer: untangling an intricate relationship. Nat Rev Immunol. 2018;18(1):5‐18. doi:10.1038/nri.2017.97 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Wang Y, Sun SN, Liu Q, et al. Autocrine complement inhibits IL10‐dependent T‐cell‐mediated antitumor immunity to promote tumor progression. Cancer Discov. 2016;6(9):1022‐1035. doi:10.1158/2159‐8290.Cd‐15‐1412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Keerthivasan S, Aghajani K, Dose M, et al. β‐Catenin promotes colitis and colon cancer through imprinting of proinflammatory properties in T cells. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(225):225ra28. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3007607 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Chen X, Oppenheim JJ. Th17 cells and Tregs: unlikely allies. J Leukoc Biol. 2014;95(5):723‐731. doi:10.1189/jlb.1213633 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Weir A, Vince JE. No longer married to inflammasome signaling: the diverse interacting pathways leading to pyroptotic cell death. Biochem J. 2022;479(10):1083‐1102. doi:10.1042/bcj20210711 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Ma MW, Wang J, Dhandapani KM, Brann DW. NADPH oxidase 2 regulates NLRP3 inflammasome activation in the brain after traumatic brain injury. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2017;2017:6057609. doi:10.1155/2017/6057609 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Guo B, Fu S, Zhang J, Liu B, Li Z. Targeting inflammasome/IL‐1 pathways for cancer immunotherapy. Sci Rep. 2016;6:36107. doi:10.1038/srep36107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Kantono M, Guo B. Inflammasomes and cancer: the dynamic role of the inflammasome in tumor development. Front Immunol. 2017;8:1132. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2017.01132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Ellinghaus U, Cortini A, Pinder CL, Le Friec G, Kemper C, Vyse TJ. Dysregulated CD46 shedding interferes with Th1‐contraction in systemic lupus erythematosus. Eur J Immunol. 2017;47(7):1200‐1210. doi:10.1002/eji.201646822 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Cardone J, Le Friec G, Vantourout P, et al. Complement regulator CD46 temporally regulates cytokine production by conventional and unconventional T cells. Nat Immunol. 2010;11(9):862‐871. doi:10.1038/ni.1917 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Elvington M, Liszewski MK, Atkinson JP. CD46 and oncologic interactions: friendly fire against cancer. Antibodies (Basel). 2020;9(4):59. doi:10.3390/antib9040059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95. Facciabene A, Motz GT, Coukos G. T‐regulatory cells: key players in tumor immune escape and angiogenesis. Cancer Res. 2012;72(9):2162‐2171. doi:10.1158/0008‐5472.Can‐11‐3687 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96. Hu L, Zhu M, Shen Y, Zhong Z, Wu B. The prognostic value of intratumoral and peritumoral tumor‐infiltrating FoxP3+ Treg cells in of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a meta‐analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2021;19(1):300. doi:10.1186/s12957‐021‐02420‐1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97. Sayour EJ, McLendon P, McLendon R, et al. Increased proportion of FoxP3+ regulatory T cells in tumor infiltrating lymphocytes is associated with tumor recurrence and reduced survival in patients with glioblastoma. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2015;64(4):419‐427. doi:10.1007/s00262‐014‐1651‐7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98. Fridman WH, Pagès F, Sautès‐Fridman C, Galon J. The immune contexture in human tumours: impact on clinical outcome. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12(4):298‐306. doi:10.1038/nrc3245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99. Fang P, Zhou J, Liang Z, et al. Immunotherapy resistance in esophageal cancer: possible mechanisms and clinical implications. Front Immunol. 2022;13:975986. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.975986 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100. Khambholja K, Gehani M, Kothari R, Marulkar S. Prognostic value of tumour‐associated regulatory T‐cells as a biomarker in non‐small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Syst Rev. 2024;13(1):233. doi:10.1186/s13643‐024‐02642‐w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101. Lam JH, Hong M, Koo S‐L, et al. CD30+OX40+ Treg is associated with improved overall survival in colorectal cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2021;70(8):2353‐2365. doi:10.1007/s00262‐021‐02859‐x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102. Huang P, Zhou X, Zheng M, Yu Y, Jin G, Zhang S. Regulatory T cells are associated with the tumor immune microenvironment and immunotherapy response in triple‐negative breast cancer. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1263537. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1263537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103. Gao X, Liu H, Ding G, et al. Complement C3 deficiency prevent against the onset of streptozotocin‐induced autoimmune diabetes involving expansion of regulatory T cells. Clin Immunol. 2011;140(3):236‐243. doi:10.1016/j.clim.2011.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104. Suen JL, Li HT, Jong YJ, Chiang BL, Yen JH. Altered homeostasis of CD4(+) FoxP3(+) regulatory T‐cell subpopulations in systemic lupus erythematosus. Immunology. 2009;127(2):196‐205. doi:10.1111/j.1365‐2567.2008.02937.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105. Cheng H‐B, Chen R‐Y, Wu J‐P, et al. Complement C4 induces regulatory T cells differentiation through dendritic cell in systemic lupus erythematosus. Cell Biosci. 2015;5(1):73. doi:10.1186/s13578‐015‐0052‐8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106. Garaud S, Buisseret L, Solinas C, et al. Tumor infiltrating B‐cells signal functional humoral immune responses in breast cancer. JCI Insight. 2019;5(18):e129641. doi:10.1172/jci.insight.129641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107. Xu Y, Mao Y, Lv Y, Tang W, Xu J. B cells in tumor metastasis: friend or foe? Int J Biol Sci. 2023;19(8):2382‐2393. doi:10.7150/ijbs.79482 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108. Fan X, Feng D, Wei D, et al. Characterizing tertiary lymphoid structures associated single‐cell atlas in breast cancer patients. Cancer Cell Int. 2025;25(1):12. doi:10.1186/s12935‐025‐03635‐y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109. Delvecchio FR, Goulart MR, Fincham REA, Bombadieri M, Kocher HM. B cells in pancreatic cancer stroma. World J Gastroenterol. 2022;28(11):1088‐1101. doi:10.3748/wjg.v28.i11.1088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110. Catalán D, Mansilla MA, Ferrier A, et al. Immunosuppressive mechanisms of regulatory B cells. Front Immunol. 2021;12:611795. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.611795 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111. Mohd Jaya FN, Garcia SG, Borràs FE, Chan GCF, Franquesa M. Paradoxical role of Breg‐inducing cytokines in autoimmune diseases. J Transl Autoimmun. 2019;2:100011. doi:10.1016/j.jtauto.2019.100011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112. Elvington M, Liszewski MK, Bertram P, Kulkarni HS, Atkinson JP. A C3(H20) recycling pathway is a component of the intracellular complement system. J Clin Investig. 2017;127(3):970‐981. doi:10.1172/JCI89412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113. Siniscalco ER, Eisenbarth SC. Fishing for a complement signal in the germinal center. Sci Immunol. 2021;6(61):eabk1556. doi:10.1126/sciimmunol.abk1556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114. Cumpelik A, Heja D, Hu Y, et al. Dynamic regulation of B cell complement signaling is integral to germinal center responses. Nat Immunol. 2021;22(6):757‐768. doi:10.1038/s41590‐021‐00926‐0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115. Izquierdo‐Bouldstridge A, Bustillos A, Bonet‐Costa C, et al. Histone H1 depletion triggers an interferon response in cancer cells via activation of heterochromatic repeats. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45(20):11622‐11642. doi:10.1093/nar/gkx746 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116. Wculek SK, Cueto FJ, Mujal AM, Melero I, Krummel MF, Sancho D. Dendritic cells in cancer immunology and immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol. 2020;20(1):7‐24. doi:10.1038/s41577‐019‐0210‐z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117. Li K, Fazekasova H, Wang N, et al. Expression of complement components, receptors and regulators by human dendritic cells. Mol Immunol. 2011;48(9‐10):1121‐1127. doi:10.1016/j.molimm.2011.02.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118. Ghannam A, Pernollet M, Fauquert JL, et al. Human C3 deficiency associated with impairments in dendritic cell differentiation, memory B cells, and regulatory T cells. J Immunol. 2008;181(7):5158‐5166. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.181.7.5158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119. Peng Q, Li K, Patel H, Sacks SH, Zhou W. Dendritic cell synthesis of C3 is required for full T cell activation and development of a Th1 phenotype. J Immunol. 2006;176(6):3330‐3341. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.176.6.3330 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120. El Shikh ME, El Sayed RM, Sukumar S, Szakal AK, Tew JG. Activation of B cells by antigens on follicular dendritic cells. Trends Immunol. 2010;31(6):205‐211. doi:10.1016/j.it.2010.03.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121. Baudino L, Sardini A, Ruseva MM, et al. C3 opsonization regulates endocytic handling of apoptotic cells resulting in enhanced T‐cell responses to cargo‐derived antigens. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(4):1503‐1508. doi:10.1073/pnas.1316877111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122. Yan M, Zheng M, Niu R, et al. Roles of tumor‐associated neutrophils in tumor metastasis and its clinical applications. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2022;10:938289. doi:10.3389/fcell.2022.938289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123. Shaul ME, Fridlender ZG. Tumour‐associated neutrophils in patients with cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019;16(10):601‐620. doi:10.1038/s41571‐019‐0222‐4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124. Masucci MT, Minopoli M, Carriero MV. Tumor associated neutrophils. their role in tumorigenesis, metastasis, prognosis and therapy. Front Oncol. 2019;9:1146. doi:10.3389/fonc.2019.01146 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125. Chen R, Pan S. Increased neutrophil infiltration as a body‐wide effect in pancreatic cancer development. EBioMedicine. 2022;81:104089. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126. Wu L, Saxena S, Awaji M, Singh RK. Tumor‐associated neutrophils in cancer: going pro. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(4):564. doi:10.3390/cancers11040564 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127. Nakagawa H, Komorita N. Complement component C3‐derived neutrophil chemotactic factors purified from exudate of rat carrageenin‐induced inflammation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1993;194(3):1181‐1187. doi:10.1006/bbrc.1993.1947 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128. Linders J, Madhi R, Mörgelin M, King BC, Blom AM, Rahman M. Complement component 3 is required for tissue damage, neutrophil infiltration, and ensuring NET formation in acute pancreatitis. Eur Surg Res. 2020;61(6):163‐176. doi:10.1159/000513845 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129. Kulkarni HS, Elvington ML, Perng YC, et al. Intracellular C3 protects human airway epithelial cells from stress‐associated cell death. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2019;60(2):144‐157. doi:10.1165/rcmb.2017‐0405OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130. Bashant KR, Aponte AM, Randazzo D, et al. Proteomic, biomechanical and functional analyses define neutrophil heterogeneity in systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80(2):209‐218. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis‐2020‐218338 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131. Apostolidis SA, Lieberman LA, Kis‐Toth K, Crispín JC, Tsokos GC. The dysregulation of cytokine networks in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Interferon Cytokine Res. 2011;31(10):769‐779. doi:10.1089/jir.2011.0029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132. Wu X, You D, Cui J, et al. Reduced neutrophil extracellular trap formation during ischemia reperfusion injury in C3 KO mice: C3 requirement for NETs release. Front Immunol. 2022;13:781273. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.781273 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133. Demkow U. Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) in cancer invasion, evasion and metastasis. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(17):4495. doi:10.3390/cancers13174495 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134. Fincham REA, Delvecchio FR, Goulart MR, Yeong JPS, Kocher HM. Natural killer cells in pancreatic cancer stroma. World J Gastroenterol. 2021;27(24):3483‐3501. doi:10.3748/wjg.v27.i24.3483 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135. Lubbers R, van Essen MF, van Kooten C, Trouw LA. Production of complement components by cells of the immune system. Clin Exp Immunol. 2017;188(2):183‐194. doi:10.1111/cei.12952 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136. Girdhari L, Pradipta P, Sourav P, Heikrujam Thoihen M, Praneet W, Arvind S. 1014 complement C3 deficiency increases the anti‐tumor immunity of NK cells and controls tumor growth. J Immunother Cancer. 2022;10(2):A1057. doi:10.1136/jitc‐2022‐SITC2022.1014 [Google Scholar]
- 137. Wang S‐Y, Veeramani S, Racila E, et al. Depletion of the C3 component of complement enhances the ability of rituximab‐coated target cells to activate human NK cells and improves the efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapy in an in vivo model. Blood. 2009;114(26):5322‐5330. doi:10.1182/blood‐2009‐01‐200469 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138. Nandagopal S, Li CG, Xu Y, Sodji QH, Graves EE , Giaccia AJ . C3aR signaling inhibits NK‐cell infiltration into the tumor microenvironment in mouse models. Cancer Immunol Res. 2022;10(2):245‐258. doi:10.1158/2326‐6066.Cir‐21‐0435 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139. Basak U, Sarkar T, Mukherjee S, et al. Tumor‐associated macrophages: an effective player of the tumor microenvironment. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1295257. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1295257 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140. Zhang J, Song J, Tang S, et al. Multi‐omics analysis reveals the chemoresistance mechanism of proliferating tissue‐resident macrophages in PDAC via metabolic adaptation. Cell Rep. 2023;42(6):112620. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2023.112620 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141. Liu M, Zhang L, Zhou Q, Wang Y, Sun Q, Ren X. The distinct impact of TAM infiltration on the prognosis of patients with cardia and non‐cardia gastric cancer and its association with H. pylori infection. Front Oncol. 2021;11:737061. doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.737061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142. Allison E, Edirimanne S, Matthews J, Fuller SJ. Breast cancer survival outcomes and tumor‐associated macrophage markers: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Oncol Ther. 2023;11(1):27‐48. doi:10.1007/s40487‐022‐00214‐3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143. Zha H, Wang X, Zhu Y, et al. Intracellular activation of complement C3 leads to PD‐L1 antibody treatment resistance by modulating tumor‐associated macrophages. Cancer Immunol Res. 2019;7(2):193‐207. doi:10.1158/2326‐6066.CIR‐18‐0272 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144. Busca A, Saxena M, Iqbal S, Angel J, Kumar A. PI3K/Akt regulates survival during differentiation of human macrophages by maintaining NF‐κB‐dependent expression of antiapoptotic Bcl‐xL. J Leukoc Biol. 2014;96(6):1011‐1022. doi:10.1189/jlb.1A0414‐212R [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145. Walling BL, Kim M. LFA‐1 in T cell migration and differentiation. Front Immunol. 2018;9:952. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2018.00952 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146. Kemper C. Targeting the Dark Horse of complement: the first generation of functionally selective C5aR2 ligands. Immunol Cell Biol. 2016;94(8):717‐718. doi:10.1038/icb.2016.62 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147. Srivastava MK, Sinha P, Clements VK, Rodriguez P, Ostrand‐Rosenberg S. Myeloid‐derived suppressor cells inhibit T‐cell activation by depleting cystine and cysteine. Cancer Res. 2010;70(1):68‐77. doi:10.1158/0008‐5472.Can‐09‐2587 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148. Darling VR, Hauke RJ, Tarantolo S, Agrawal DK. Immunological effects and therapeutic role of C5a in cancer. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2015;11(2):255‐263. doi:10.1586/1744666x.2015.983081 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149. Guo RF, Ward PA. Role of C5a in inflammatory responses. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005;23:821‐852. doi:10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115835 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150. Huber‐Lang M, Younkin EM, Sarma JV, et al. Generation of C5a by phagocytic cells. Am J Pathol. 2002;161(5):1849‐1859. doi:10.1016/s0002‐9440(10)64461‐6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151. Zha H, Han X, Zhu Y, et al. Blocking C5aR signaling promotes the anti‐tumor efficacy of PD‐1/PD‐L1 blockade. Oncoimmunology. 2017;6(10):e1349587. doi:10.1080/2162402x.2017.1349587 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152. Hong W, Yang J, Bi Z, et al. A mouse model for SARS‐CoV‐2‐induced acute respiratory distress syndrome. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2021;6(1):1. doi:10.1038/s41392‐020‐00451‐w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153. King BC, Blom AM. Intracellular complement: evidence, definitions, controversies, and solutions. Immunol Rev. 2023;313(1):104‐119. doi:10.1111/imr.13135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154. Friščić J, Böttcher M, Reinwald C, et al. The complement system drives local inflammatory tissue priming by metabolic reprogramming of synovial fibroblasts. Immunity. 2021;54(5):1002‐1021.e10. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2021.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155. Holmdahl R, Malmström V, Burkhardt H. Autoimmune priming, tissue attack and chronic inflammation—the three stages of rheumatoid arthritis. Eur J Immunol. 2014;44(6):1593‐1599. doi:10.1002/eji.201444486 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156. Afzali B, Kemper C. Fibroblast tissue priming—not so nice to C you! Immunity. 2021;54(5):847‐850. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2021.04.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157. Jun JC, Rathore A, Younas H, Gilkes D, Polotsky VY. Hypoxia‐inducible factors and cancer. Curr Sleep Med Rep. 2017;3(1):1‐10. doi:10.1007/s40675‐017‐0062‐7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158. Shu C, Zha H, Long H, et al. C3a‐C3aR signaling promotes breast cancer lung metastasis via modulating carcinoma associated fibroblasts. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2020;39(1):11. doi:10.1186/s13046‐019‐1515‐2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159. Zhao Z, Xiong S, Gao J, Zhang Y, Guo E, Huang Y. C3(+) cancer‐associated fibroblasts promote tumor growth and therapeutic resistance in gastric cancer via activation of the NF‐κB signaling pathway. J Transl Med. 2024;22(1):1130. doi:10.1186/s12967‐024‐05939‐5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160. Garred P, Tenner AJ, Mollnes TE. Therapeutic targeting of the complement system: from rare diseases to pandemics. Pharmacol Rev. 2021;73(2):792‐827. doi:10.1124/pharmrev.120.000072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161. Merle NS, Roumenina LT. The complement system as a target in cancer immunotherapy. Eur J Immunol. 2024;54(10):2350820. doi:10.1002/eji.202350820 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162. Kleczko EK, Kwak JW, Schenk EL, Nemenoff RA. Targeting the complement pathway as a therapeutic strategy in lung cancer. Front Immunol. 2019;10:954. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2019.00954 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 163. Itakura E, Huang R‐R, Wen D‐R, Paul E, Wünsch PH, Cochran AJ. IL‐10 expression by primary tumor cells correlates with melanoma progression from radial to vertical growth phase and development of metastatic competence. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(6):801‐809. doi:10.1038/modpathol.2011.5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 164. Hsu TI, Wang YC, Hung CY, et al. Positive feedback regulation between IL10 and EGFR promotes lung cancer formation. Oncotarget. 2016;7(15):20840‐20854. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.7894 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 165. Ajona D, Ortiz‐Espinosa S, Moreno H, et al. A combined PD‐1/C5a blockade synergistically protects against lung cancer growth and metastasis. Cancer Discov. 2017;7(7):694‐703. doi:10.1158/2159‐8290.Cd‐16‐1184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 166. Zhang P, Gu Y, Wang J, et al. Complement receptor C5aR1 blockade reprogrammes tumor‐associated macrophages and synergizes with anti‐PD‐1 therapy in gastric cancer. Int J Cancer. 2023;153(1):224‐237. doi:10.1002/ijc.34474 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 167. Shen H, Gu X, Li X, et al. C5aR1 shapes a non‐inflammatory tumor microenvironment and mediates immune evasion in gastric cancer. Biomol Biomed. 2023;23(3):392‐404. doi:10.17305/bjbms.2022.8317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 168. Surace L, Lysenko V, Fontana Andrea O, et al. Complement is a central mediator of radiotherapy‐induced tumor‐specific immunity and clinical response. Immunity. 2015;42(4):767‐777. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2015.03.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 169. Beach C, MacLean D, Majorova D, et al. Improving radiotherapy in immunosuppressive microenvironments by targeting complement receptor C5aR1. J Clin Investig. 2024;133(23):e168277. doi:10.1172/JCI168277 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 170. Maher SG, McDowell DT, Collins BC, Muldoon C, Gallagher WM, Reynolds JV. Serum proteomic profiling reveals that pretreatment complement protein levels are predictive of esophageal cancer patient response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Ann Surg. 2011;254(5):809‐816; discussion 816‐817. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31823699f2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 171. Lynam‐Lennon N, Bibby BA, Mongan AM, et al. Low miR‐187 expression promotes resistance to chemoradiation therapy in vitro and correlates with treatment failure in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. Mol Med. 2016;22:388‐397. doi:10.2119/molmed.2016.00020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 172. O'Brien RM, Meltzer S, Buckley CE, et al. Complement is increased in treatment resistant rectal cancer and modulates radioresistance. Cancer Letters. 2024;604:217253. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2024.217253 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 173. Tamamis P, Kieslich CA, Nikiforovich GV, Woodruff TM, Morikis D, Archontis G. Insights into the mechanism of C5aR inhibition by PMX53 via implicit solvent molecular dynamics simulations and docking. BMC Biophys. 2014;7(1):5. doi:10.1186/2046‐1682‐7‐5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 174. deLisle Milton RC, Milton SC, Chamberlin AR. Improving the Fmoc solid phase synthesis of the cyclic hexapeptide complement C5a antagonist, PMX205. Int J Pept Res Ther. 2011;17(4):337. doi:10.1007/s10989‐011‐9273‐9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 175. Ames RS, Lee D, Foley JJ, et al. Identification of a selective nonpeptide antagonist of the anaphylatoxin C3a receptor that demonstrates antiinflammatory activity in animal models. J Immunol. 2001;166(10):6341‐6348. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.166.10.6341 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 176. Moriconi A, Cunha TM, Souza GR, et al. Targeting the minor pocket of C5aR for the rational design of an oral allosteric inhibitor for inflammatory and neuropathic pain relief. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(47):16937‐16942. doi:10.1073/pnas.1417365111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 177. Suwa T, Lee KS, Chai IJ, et al. UPR‐induced intracellular C5aR1 promotes adaptation to the hypoxic tumour microenvironment. Cell Death Dis. 2025;16(1):547. doi:10.1038/s41419‐025‐07862‐z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 178. Kolev M, Kolu N, Yeh M, Parikh A, Deschatelets P. The future of complement therapeutics. Explor Immunol. 2024;4(5):577‐615. doi:10.37349/ei.2024.00161 [Google Scholar]
- 179. La‐Beck NM, Islam MR, Markiewski MM. Nanoparticle‐induced complement activation: implications for cancer nanomedicine. Front Immunol. 2021;11:603039. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.603039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 180. Xu Z, Xie Y, Chen W, Deng W. Nanocarrier‐based systems for targeted delivery: current challenges and future directions. MedComm (2020). 2025;6(9):e70337. doi:10.1002/mco2.70337 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 181. Liu J, Cabral H, Mi P. Nanocarriers address intracellular barriers for efficient drug delivery, overcoming drug resistance, subcellular targeting and controlled release. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2024;207:115239. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2024.115239 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 182. Cheng Z, Li Y, Zhao D, et al. Nanocarriers for intracellular co‐delivery of proteins and small‐molecule drugs for cancer therapy. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10:994655. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2022.994655 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 183. Singh P, Kemper C. Complement, complosome, and complotype: a perspective. Eur J Immunol. 2023;53(12):e2250042. doi:10.1002/eji.202250042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 184. Hamidi H, Boudhabhay I, Dragon‐Durey M‐A. Harnessing complement biomarkers for precision cancer care. Semin Immunol. 2025;78:101963. doi:10.1016/j.smim.2025.101963 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 185. Kubat Oktem E. Biomarkers of the complement system in cancer. Medeni Med J. 2025;40(1):1‐11. doi:10.4274/MMJ.galenos.2025.34783 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
