# paper.pdf ## Metadata - PDFFormatVersion=1.4 - Language=en-US - IsLinearized=true - IsAcroFormPresent=false - IsXFAPresent=false - IsCollectionPresent=false - IsSignaturesPresent=false - CreationDate=D:20260604112053+05'30' - Creator=Adobe InDesign 15.1 (Windows) - ModDate=D:20260604112059+05'30' - Producer=Adobe PDF Library 15.0 - Trapped=False - Custom.jobID=9c42aa46-0dc1-402d-b1b6-2f10cf8e0a93 - dc:identifier=doi:jitc-2025-014681 - dc:format=application/pdf - xmp:createdate=2026-06-04T11:20:53+05:30 - xmp:metadatadate=2026-06-04T11:20:59+05:30 - xmp:modifydate=2026-06-04T11:20:59+05:30 - xmp:creatortool=Adobe InDesign 15.1 (Windows) - xmpmm:instanceid=uuid:53772723-8968-4989-8dfa-b435dcd88ded - xmpmm:originaldocumentid=xmp.did:B2C59A163194E611BD009A7CB80B8EC7 - xmpmm:documentid=xmp.id:988bcf85-5419-c14f-9202-d99ba987d1c8 - xmpmm:renditionclass=proof:pdf - xmpmm:derivedfrom=xmp.iid:b0f12903-4690-3f45-a69e-f67329e3881dxmp.did:d038b063-7412-4b46-a0a8-3315ee6c6aeexmp.did:B2C59A163194E611BD009A7CB80B8EC7default - xmpmm:history=convertedfrom application/x-indesign to application/pdfAdobe InDesign 15.1 (Windows)/2026-06-04T11:20:53+05:30 - pdfx:jobid=9c42aa46-0dc1-402d-b1b6-2f10cf8e0a93 - pdf:producer=Adobe PDF Library 15.0 - pdf:trapped=False ## Contents ### Page 1 1JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open accessInhibition of histone demethylase LSD1 suppresses CD47 expression andenhances efficacy of CD47 blockade inbreast cancerFengjie Jiang , 1 Yu Shen,1 Bing Li,2 Michael Henry,3,4 Nancy Davidson,5 Yi Huang 1To cite: Jiang F, Shen Y, Li B,et al. Inhibition of histone demethylase LSD1 suppresses CD47 expression and enhances efficacy of CD47 blockade in breast cancer. Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/ jitc-2025-014681► Additional supplemental material is published online only. To view, please visit the journal online (https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/jitc- 2025- 014681). Accepted 21 May 2026 1 Internal Medicine, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA 2 Pathology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA 3 Biomedical and Translational Sciences, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA 4 Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA 5 Fred Hutch Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USACorrespondence toDr Yi Huang;yi- huang@ uiowa. eduOriginal research© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2026. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.ABSTRACT Background CD47 functions as a “don’t eat me” checkpoint, inhibiting macrophage-mediated phagocytosis in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). While anti-CD47 therapies can restore immune surveillance, their efficacy in TNBC is often limited by immune evasion and drug development challenges.Methods We investigated the crosstalk between the histone demethylase lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1) and CD47 signaling in TNBC using in silico datasets, isogenic cell lines, conditional BRCA1 knockout models, and syngeneic mouse models. Techniques such as immunohistochemistry, multiplex immunofluorescence, immunoprecipitation, protein ubiquitination, chromatin immunoprecipitation, chemotaxis, flow cytometry, and phagocytosis assays were employed to examine the epigenetic regulation of CD47 by LSD1 and its impact on antitumor immunity. The efficacy of combining LSD1 inhibition with anti-CD47 therapy was evaluated in BALB/ cJ mice bearing TNBC tumors.Results In TNBC tumors, CD47 expression is positively correlated with elevated LSD1 levels, which are associated with increased infiltration of M2 macrophages and a concomitant decrease in M1 macrophages and CD8+T cells. Inhibition of LSD1 led to downregulation of CD47 by suppressing the expression and activity of its key transcriptional regulators, NF-κB (p65) and STAT3, through distinct mechanisms. Loss of LSD1 reduced p65 transcription, which was linked to an accumulation of the repressive histone mark H3K9me2 at the p65 promoter. Conversely, LSD1 inhibition promoted polyubiquitination and subsequent destabilization of STAT3. LSD1 inhibition also enhanced phagocytosis and promoted M1 polarization of macrophages. CD47 downregulation induced the production of interferon-γ and Th1-type chemokines in TNBC cells, facilitating increased tumor infiltration of CD8+T cells. Furthermore, combining LSD1 inhibition with anti- CD47 therapy significantly improved antitumor efficacy compared with monotherapy in syngeneic tumor models, without inducing significant toxicity. This combination therapy also promoted a shift in macrophage polarization toward the M1 phenotype, further enhancing CD8+T cell infiltration within tumors. Depletion of CD8+T cells significantly diminished the antitumor efficacy of the combination therapy.Conclusion Targeting LSD1 enhances the efficacy of anti-CD47 therapy by overcoming immune evasion, offering a promising strategy to improve immunotherapy outcomes in TNBC.WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC⇒ CD47 acts as a “don’t eat me” signal and im- mune checkpoint, inhibiting macrophage-mediated phagocytosis in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). While CD47 blockade can restore immune surveillance, anti-CD47 therapies face significant challenges, including on-target, off-tumor toxicities. Lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1), a key histone demethylase, plays a role in regulating the tumor immune response, but its involvement in CD47-mediated immune evasion in TNBC remains poorly understood.WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS⇒ This study provides novel evidence linking elevat- ed LSD1 expression in TNBC tumors with increased CD47 expression, enhanced M2 macrophage in- filtration, and decreased M1 macrophages and CD8+T cells. Mechanistically, LSD1 inhibition suppresses CD47 expression by downregulating NF-κB and STAT3 through distinct mechanisms. Functionally, LSD1 inhibition enhances macrophage phagocytosis, promotes M1 polarization, and in- creases CD8+T cell infiltration in TNBC. The combi- nation of LSD1 inhibition with anti-CD47 blockade improves antitumor efficacy and demonstrates a favorable safety profile, suggesting a promising therapeutic strategy.HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY⇒ This study presents a novel approach targeting the crosstalk between LSD1 and immune components, offering a potential therapeutic strategy for breast cancer patients with suboptimal immune respons- es. As LSD1 inhibitors advance in clinical trials, their combination with anti-CD47 therapy could improve immunotherapy outcomes, providing new treatment options for patients who do not respond adequately to current therapies. ### Page 2 2JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open accessINTRODUCTIONBreast cancer (BC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality in women, characterized by significant molecular heterogeneity that influences therapeutic responses.1 2 A major clinical challenge is therapeutic resistance, both intrinsic and acquired, which limits treatment efficacy and contributes to relapse and metas- tasis. 3 4 Resistance arises from factors such as genetic mutations, epigenetic changes, tumor microenvironment alterations, enhanced drug efflux, and therapy-induced senescence.5 6 Recent evidence highlights the critical role of the immune system in BC tumorigenesis, progression, and treatment resistance. Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has emerged as a promising strategy, particu- larly for refractory subtypes like triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). 7 However, the response to ICB in TNBC remains limited, with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death- ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors as monotherapy in metastatic TNBC yielding an overall response rate of only 5%–25%. 7–10 A hallmark of TNBC is its ability to manipulate the immune microenvironment, promoting tumor progres- sion by recruiting immune cells that facilitate immune suppression, such as regulatory T cells, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, and M2-type tumor- associated macro- phages (TAMs). These cells create an immunosuppres- sive microenvironment that limits the activity of cytotoxic T cells, M1 macrophages, and natural killer (NK) cells, which are critical for targeting and eliminating cancer cells.7 11 Macrophages exist in two polarization states: M1 (pro-inflammatory) and M2 (immune-suppressive). M1 macrophages are generally associated with promoting antitumor immunity, whereas M2 macrophages support tumor growth and immune suppression.12 In TNBC, an increased presence of M2 macrophages correlates with poor prognosis and enhanced tumor progression.13 These macrophages are recruited to the tumor by cytokines, growth factors, and chemokines secreted by cancer cells. CD47, a transmembrane protein, serves as a ligand for the immune inhibitory receptor signal-regulatory protein alpha (SIRPα) on macrophages and dendritic cells (DCs), acting as a “don’t eat me” signal that inhibits phagocytosis and prevents adaptive immune activation.14 In cancer cells, CD47 is frequently upregulated, aiding immune evasion and promoting tumor tolerance.15 The expres- sion of CD47 is regulated by key transcription factors such as c- Myc, HIF- 1α, STAT3, and NF-κB. 16–18 Targeting CD47 with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has shown promise in BC therapy.19 20 However, challenges remain, including off-target toxicity, where CD47 blockade may trigger immune activation against normal tissues, leading to adverse effects such as anemia.21 Additionally, resistance mechanisms may allow tumors to evade immune surveil- lance despite CD47 blockade, complicating treatment efficacy. 20 Therefore, more effective combinatorial strate- gies are needed to enhance CD47-targeted therapies. Epigenetic alterations, such as DNA hypermethylation and histone dysregulation, are critical in the initiation and progression of TNBC.22 23 Histone lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1, also known as KDM1A or AOF2) was the first identified flavin adenine dinucleotide-dependent histone demethylase. LSD1 removes mono- and dimethyl groups from lysine 4 (H3K4) or lysine 9 (H3K9) of histone H3, leading to either repressive or activating transcriptional marks, depending on the cellular and chromatin context.24–27 The LSD1-CoREST complex also regulates macrophage polarization, with LSD1 inhibition promoting an antitumor M1-like macro- phage phenotype. 28 However, the mechanisms by which LSD1 regulates the “don’t eat me” signal of CD47 and modulates macrophage-mediated phagocytosis in TNBC remain unknown. In this study, we investigate CD47-mediated immune evasion in TNBC and identify LSD1 as a key regulator of CD47 expression and immune modu- lation. We demonstrate that LSD1 inhibition suppresses CD47 expression by downregulating key transcription factors, including NF-κB and STAT3. This suppression of CD47 enhances the expression of Th1-type chemok- ines, promoting CD8+T cell infiltration into the tumor microenvironment. Furthermore, we provide preclinical evidence that combining the LSD1 inhibitor (LSD1i) with anti- CD47 blockade significantly improves thera- peutic efficacy in TNBC.MATERIALS AND METHODS Reagents, plasmids, cell linesSP2509 was obtained from Selleck Chemicals (Houston, Texas, USA). Tranylcypromine and MG132 were purchased from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, Massachusetts, USA). The CD47 and CD8 mAbs for animal studies were acquired from Bio X Cell (Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA). Plasmids pCMV3-N- GFPSpark, pCMV3- N- GFPSpark- RELA/NF-κB (p65) (mouse), and pCMV3- N- GFPSpark-STAT3 (mouse) were obtained from Sino Biological (Paoli, Pennsylvania, USA). pcDNA3-HA- ubiquitin was used as previously described. 29 The MDA- MB-231, 4T1, EMT6, and RAW 264.7 cell lines were sourced from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) (Manassas, Virginia, USA). Mouse primary bone marrow-derived macrophages were obtained from iXCells Biotechnologies (San Diego, California, USA). Cells were cultured in growth medium as previously described. 30–32ImmunohistochemistryFormalin- fixed, paraffin- embedded tissue sections (5 mm thick) were deparaffinized and rehydrated through a graded ethanol series, then treated with 3% hydrogen peroxide to block endogenous peroxidase activity. Antigen retrieval was carried out by heating the sections in boiling citrate buffer (pH 6.0) for 10 min. The sections were subsequently incubated with primary antibodies, followed by a biotinylated secondary antibody. Signal amplification was achieved using the VECTASTAIN Elite ABC system, and staining was visualized with 3,3′-diamino- benzidine. Slides were counterstained with hematoxylin. ### Page 3 3JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open accessFinally, samples were examined using a Leica inverted microscope, and staining intensity was quantified with ImageJ software.Real-time qPCRRNA extraction was performed using TRIzol reagent (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA). Reverse transcription was carried out with moloney murine leukemia virus (MMLV) reverse transcriptase, as previously described. 33 34 Quantitative real-time PCR was performed on the Applied Biosystems QS3 Real-Time PCR system, following established protocols.29 Predesigned TaqMan Gene Expression Assays (Thermo Fisher Scientific) were used for gene expression analysis. Relative gene expression was calculated using the ΔΔCt method, with β-actin serving as the internal control.ImmunoblottingCell lysates were collected as previously described. 30 35 36 Total protein concentration was measured using the BCA Protein Assay Kit (Thermo Scientific). Proteins were separated by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) on 12% polyacrylamide gels and transferred to polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes. Membranes were developed using enhanced chemiluminescence. β-actin was used as a loading control. Blot images were captured using the Invitrogen iBRIGHT CL750 DSS imaging system. The antibodies used are listed in online supplemental table 1.siRNA transfectionPre-designed siRNA and non-targeting scramble siRNA (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Dallas, Texas, USA) were transfected into cells according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Cells were collected post-transfection for subse- quent analysis. The siRNAs used in this study are listed in online supplemental table 2.Chromatin immunoprecipitationChromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assays were performed using the MilliporeSigma ChIP Assay Kit, following protocols from our previous studies.29 31 2 million cells were used per assay. Quantitative ChIP was conducted to assess changes in STAT3 and p65 binding at the CD47 promoter, as well as H3K4me2 and H3K9me2 marks at the p65 promoter, using quantitative PCR (qPCR) with SYBR Green Master Mix (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Primer sets are listed in online supplemental table 3. All primers were ordered and synthesized by Inte- grated DNA Technologies (Coralville, Iowa, USA).Immunoprecipitation and ubiquitination assaysCell lysates were prepared using immunoprecipita- tion (IP) lysis buffer, as previously described.29 IP was performed by incubating lysates from EMT6 cells with LSD1, STAT3, p65, or control IgG antibodies, followed by the addition of protein G-plus agarose beads (Milli- poreSigma, Burlington, MA, USA). The resulting complexes were subjected to immunoblotting using LSD1, STAT3, or p65 antibodies. For the ubiquitination assay, EMT6 cells were transfected with HA-Ubiquitin and treated with SP2509 for 24 hours, with co-treatment with 20 μM MG132 for 8 hours. Lysates were then collected and subjected to IP with Protein G-plus agarose beads. Immunoblots were performed using anti-HA, anti- STAT3, or anti-β-actin antibodies.Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assayELISA kits for detecting mouse CXCL9 and CXCL10 (IP-10) were purchased from Abcam (ab203364/ab260067). Supernatants from EMT6 cells were collected 48 hours post- transfection with CD47 siRNAs. Experimental proce- dures were performed according to the manufacturer’s protocols, and absorbance was measured at 450 nm using the Agilent BioTek Synergy spectrophotometer.Chemotaxis/migration assayHuman peripheral blood CD8+T cells (STEMCELL Tech- nologies, Vancouver, Canada) were starved in serum-free Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) for 24 hours, followed by harvesting, washing, and counting. A total of 50,000 CD8+T cells were placed in the upper chambers of a Cell Migration/Chemotaxis Assay plate (Abcam, Cambridge, UK) and allowed to migrate towards the cell supernatants in the lower chamber, which were derived from cells transfected with siRNAs. After a 24 hours incubation period, 10 μL of cell dye was added to each well, and fluorescence was measured at Ex/ Em=530/590 nm using the Agilent BioTek Synergy fluo- rescence spectrophotometer. A standard curve was gener- ated by performing a twofold serial dilution of cells in wash buffer to correlate cell numbers with relative fluo- rescence units.Macrophage phagocytosis assaysThe mouse macrophage cell line RAW 264.7 was labeled with CellTracker red fluorescent membrane dye (TargetMol PKH, Fisher Scientific) and seeded into 24-well culture plates. EMT6 cells treated with scramble or LSD1 siRNA were stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue, 5 μg/mL) to visualize nuclei and then co-cultured with labeled RAW 264.7 macrophages for 2 hours to allow macrophage-tumor cell interactions and phagocytosis. Phagocytosis was assessed by fluorescence microscopy, identifying RAW 264.7 macrophages engulfing EMT6 cells. Images were captured using a Leica inverted fluo- rescence microscope. For the flow cytometry-based phagocytosis assay, tumor cells were labeled with Hoechst 33342 for 5 min and co-cultured with RAW 264.7 cells or mouse primary bone marrow-derived macrophages (iXCells, 10MU- 030) for 2 hour. Cells were then stained with 2 μL (per 200 μL sample) of PE- conjugated F4/80 rat anti- mouse antibody (BD Biosciences, BDB565410) at 4°C for 30 min in the dark. Samples were analyzed by flow cytometry using a Becton Dickinson LSR II at the Flow Cytometry Core Facility of the University of Iowa. Data ### Page 4 4JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open accesswere subsequently analyzed using FlowJo software (BD Biosciences).Flow cytometrySingle-cell suspensions from mouse syngeneic tumors were prepared according to a previously established protocol. 37 Approximately 1×10 6 cells were resus- pended in 100 μL Live/Dead staining solution (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Cells were then incubated with anti-mouse CD16/32 antibody (Thermo Fisher Scientific) to block Fc receptors for 15 min on ice. Following Fc receptor blocking, cells were divided into several groups and stained with antibody mixtures containing fluorochrome-conjugated antibodies targeting specific surface markers (online supplemental table 4). The cells were incubated with the antibodies for 30 min at 4°C in the dark. Following incubation, the cells were washed two times with flow cytometry buffer and resuspended in 300–500 μL phosphate-buffered saline for analysis. Data were acquired using the Cytek Aurora Spectral Flow Cytometer at the University of Iowa Flow Cytometry Core Facility. Subsequent analysis was performed using FlowJo software. Dead cells and debris were excluded based on forward and side scatter parameters. Fluorescence compensation was performed using single-stained and unstained beads.Animal studiesAll animal studies were conducted at the Medical Lab animal facility of the University of Iowa in accordance with protocols approved by the University of Iowa Insti- tutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Brca1-deficient mice (Trp53tm1Brd Brca1 tm1Aash Tg(LGB-cre)74Acl/J, Stock No: 012620) were sourced from The Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine, USA). These mice carry the beta-lactoglobulin Cre (BLG- Cre) transgene, homozygous for floxed exons 22–24 of the Brca1 allele, and heterozygous for the p53 tumor suppressor gene deficiency. Mouse genotyping was performed using the Phire Tissue Direct PCR Master Mix kit (Fisher Scientific) as previously described.38 After two rounds of pregnancy, tumors were allowed to develop and were then used for subsequent experiments. Syngeneic EMT6 tumors were established by injecting 1×106 tumor cells into the mammary fat pads of 6–8 weeks old female BALB/cJ mice (The Jackson Laboratory). When tumor volume reached 50–100 mm3 , the mice were randomized into experimental groups. SP2509 (50 mg/kg) was administered daily via intraper- itoneal injection, while anti-CD47 antibodies (5 mg/kg) were given intraperitoneally every 3 days. CD8+T cells were depleted by intraperitoneal injection of anti-CD8 antibodies (250 μg per mouse) every 4 days. Vehicle and isotype-matched antibodies served as controls. Tumor volumes were measured with calipers and calculated as (length×width2 )/2. The primary ethical endpoint for mouse tumors is a maximum diameter of 2 cm in any dimension.Statistical analysisData are presented as mean±SD of three indepen- dent experiments. Quantitative variables were analyzed using a two- tailed Student’s t-test. Statistical analyses were performed with GraphPad Prism (GraphPad Soft- ware, La Jolla, California, USA). immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining was quantitatively assessed by calculating the average optical density using ImageJ software. For multiple groups comparison in animal studies, differ- ences in tumor growth were analyzed using analysis of variance with Tukey’s post hoc multiple comparison test. P values<0.05 were considered statistically significant for all tests. Significance symbols are defined as *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.RESULTS LSD1 upregulates CD47 expression and is associated with M2-type macrophage polarization in TNBCOur previous study showed that shRNA-mediated knock- down of LSD1 significantly suppressed the in vivo growth of syngeneic EMT6 tumors.38 To determine whether LSD1 loss alters the tumor immune microenvironment, we analyzed immune- related gene expression in these tumors. qPCR revealed that LSD1 knockdown markedly increased Ifn-γ expression while concomitantly reducingCd47 expression (figure 1A). Interferon (IFN)-γ is a key cytokine that promotes cellular immunity and drives anti- tumor immune responses.39 In contrast, CD47 acts as an innate immune checkpoint by inhibiting macrophage-mediated phagocytosis.40 By acting as a “don’t eat me” signal, CD47 suppresses phagocytic clearance by macro- phages and DCs and is frequently overexpressed in cancers, where it correlates with poor clinical outcomes.41In silico analysis of the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data revealed a positive correlation between LSD1 and CD47 expression in clinical BC samples (TIMER3 database) (figure 1B). Further analysis of the GSE62944 dataset showed elevated CD47 messenger RNA (mRNA) levels in basal-like breast tumors compared with other BC subtypes and normal-like tissues (figure 1C). However, the role of CD47 overexpression in breast tumorigenesis and its rela- tionship with LSD1 remain poorly understood. To investigate this, we employed a genetically engi- neered BRCA1- deficient mouse TNBC model (Brca1 f22−24/ p53±/BLG- Cre; The Jackson Laboratory), which harbors a conditional knockout of BRCA1 and a heterozygous deletion of p53 specifically in mammary epithelial cells. Cre recombinase expression is driven by the BLG-Cre promoter during lactation (online supplemental figure 1A). Following two rounds of pregnancy to activate Cre recombinase, BRCA1-deficient tumors were induced in the mouse mammary glands, and both tumor and adjacent normal tissues were subsequently harvested (online supplemental figure 1B,C). These tumors exhib- ited increased levels of LSD1 and Ki-67 compared with adjacent mammary tissues (online supplemental figure 2A,B). IHC analysis revealed significantly higher CD47 ### Page 5 5JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open accessFigure 1 LSD1 inhibition attenuates CD47 expression in TNBC. (A) qRT-PCR analysis of immune regulatory factors in EMT6 tumors expressing control or LSD1 shRNA (n=6 per group). (B) Analysis of TCGA data showing a positive correlation between LSD1 and CD47 expression. (C) CD47 mRNA expression across breast cancer subtypes (TCGA database: https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26209429). (D) Immunohistochemical staining of CD47, F4/80, iNOS, arginase 1 and CD8 in mouse BRCA1-deficient mammary gland tumors and matched adjacent mammary tissues. Scale bar, 200 μm. Quantification of staining intensity was performed by AOD analysis using ImageJ software (n=3 per group). (E) qRT-PCR analysis of Lsd1 and Cd47 mRNA expression in EMT6, 4T1 and MDA- MB- 231 cells transfected with control or LSD1-targeting siRNA for 24 hours. β- actin was used as an internal control. (F) Immunoblot analysis of LSD1 and CD47 in EMT6, 4T1 and MDA-MB- 231 cells transfected with control or LSD1- targeting siRNA for 48 hours. (G) Immunoblot analysis of CD47 in EMT6 and MDA-MB- 231 cells treated with increasing concentrations of SP2509 for 24 hours. CD47 antibodies: Santa Cruz, sc53050 for EMT6 and 4T1 cells; Santa Cruz, sc12730 for MDA-MB- 231 cells. Data are mean±SD from three independent experiments unless otherwise indicated. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. AOD, average optical density; IFN, interferon; IHC,immunohistochemistry; IL, interleukin; KD, knockdown; LSD1, lysine-specific demethylase 1; mRNA, messenger RNA; NS, not significant; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; qRT-PCR, quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; SCR, scramble; TCGA, the Cancer Genome Atlas; TNBC, triple- negative breast cancer; TNF, tumor necrosis factor. ### Page 6 6JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open accessexpression in BRCA1-deficient tumors than in adjacent normal tissue (figure 1D). While the total macrophage population (F4/80+) remained statistically unchanged between tumors and adjacent normal tissues, M1-type macrophage infiltration (iNOS+) was significantly reduced, whereas M2- type macrophages (arginase 1+) were markedly elevated in the tumors (figure 1D). Further- more, CD8+T cell infiltration was substantially dimin- ished in tumors compared with normal tissue, while the CD4+T cell population remained unaffected (figure 1D; online supplemental figure 2C). Together, these findings suggest a positive association between LSD1 and CD47 in BRCA1- deficient mammary tumors and indicate that the immune microenvironment in these tumors is skewed toward a protumorigenic M2-like TAM phenotype. This is coupled with impaired cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) infiltration during tumor progression. To further investigate the role of LSD1 in regulating CD47 expression and its impact on macrophage function, we performed siRNA-mediated knockdown of LSD1 in multiple human and murine TNBC cell lines. This knock- down resulted in a significant reduction in CD47 expres- sion at both the mRNA and protein levels (figure 1E,F). Consistent with these findings, treatment with LSD1 inhibitors (SP2509, tranylcypromine) also led to a down- regulation of CD47 protein levels (figure 1G; online supplemental figure 3A). These results suggest that LSD1 inhibition suppresses CD47 expression in TNBC cells.LSD1 inhibition suppresses NF-κB and STAT3 through distinct mechanisms in TNBCAmong the known transcriptional regulators of CD47, c- Myc, HIF- 1α, NF-κB, and STAT3 bind to promoter and intronic regions to drive its transcription.42 To eval- uate the effect of LSD1 depletion on these factors, we examined their expression following LSD1 knockdown. siRNA-mediated depletion of LSD1 markedly reduced NF-κB (p65) and STAT3 protein levels, with minimal effects on c-Myc and HIF-1α in EMT6, 4T1, and MDA-MB-231 TNBC cells (figure 2A). Consistently, treatment with the LSD1 inhibitor SP2509 decreased NF-κB (p65) and STAT3 expression (figure 2B; online supplemental figure 3B), while only marginally affecting c-Myc and HIF- 1α. These findings indicate that LSD1 preferentially regulates NF-κB and STAT3 signaling in TNBC. TCGA analysis further revealed a positive correlation between LSD1 expression and both p65 and STAT3 levels in BC and basal-like tumors (online supplemental figure 3C). Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) analysis showed that LSD1 knockdown reducedp65 mRNA levels, whereas STAT3 mRNA remained unchanged (figure 2C,D), suggesting transcriptional regulation of p65 and post-transcriptional regulation of STAT3. STAT3 is known to be regulated by various post-translational modifications, including phosphorylation and methylation.43 Previous studies have shown that STAT3 is methylated at K140 by SET9 and subsequently demethylated by LSD1 on binding to a subset of its target gene promoters.44 In addition, phosphorylation of LSD1 by PKCα is required for p65 binding, facilitating its demethylation and enhancing its stability.45 To further investigate how LSD1 regulates STAT3 and p65 in TNBC cells, we performed reciprocal co-IP assays to assess poten- tial physical interactions. LSD1 was found to interact with STAT3, but not with p65 (figure 3A), suggesting direct regulation of STAT3. Consistently, ubiquitination assays revealed that treatment with an LSD1 inhibitor increased STAT3 polyubiquitination (figure 3B), indicating that LSD1 regulates STAT3 via a post-translational mechanism, potentially by modulating its stability or degradation. Next, we examined whether LSD1 knockdown affects the transcriptional activity of p65 using ChIP analysis. LSD1 can function as either a transcriptional repressor or activator by demethylating mono- or dimethylated H3K4 or H3K9, respectively, depending on cellular context and interacting partners. 46 To investigate how LSD1 inhibition modulates p65 transcription through alterations in the histone methylation landscape at its promoter, we conducted tiling ChIP assays using primers spanning approximately −392 to +254 base pairs relative to the p65 transcriptional start site (TSS) (figure 3C). H3K4 methylation was detected at the P1, P2, P3, and P5 regions, whereas H3K9 methylation was enriched at P1, P3, and P5 (online supplemental figure 4A,B). qPCR of ChIP- enriched DNA showed that LSD1 depletion signifi- cantly increased H3K9me2 across multiple promoter regions (P3, P5), while H3K4me2 levels were unchanged or reduced (P3) (figure 3D). These results indicate that LSD1 maintains a permissive chromatin state at the p65 promoter. Its depletion leads to selective enrichment of the repressive H3K9me2 mark, promoting transcriptional suppression. The lack of induction in H3K4me2 further suggests that LSD1 regulates p65 primarily through modulation of repressive rather than activating histone marks.LSD1 promotes CD47 expression through activating NF-κB and STAT3In silico analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between CD47 expression and both NF-κB and STAT3 in breast tumor and basal-like cohorts (figure 3E). To deter- mine whether p65 and STAT3 directly regulate CD47 and whether LSD1 acts upstream of these pathways, EMT6 cells were transfected with plasmids encoding mouse p65 (pCMV3- N- GFP- RELA/NF-κB) or STAT3 (pCMV3-N-GFP-STAT3). Overexpression of either factor significantly increased CD47 mRNA and protein levels (figure 4A,B), indicating that both act as key activators of CD47 in TNBC. Consistently, rescue experiments showed that enforced expression of p65 or STAT3 restored CD47 expression in LSD1-depleted EMT6 cells (figure 4C,D). Collectively, these findings suggest that LSD1 promotes CD47 expres- sion, at least in part, through activating NF-κB and STAT3 signaling pathways. ### Page 7 7JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open accessFigure 2 Downregulation of NF-κB and STAT3 by LSD1 inhibition. (A) Immunoblot analysis of c-Myc, p65, STAT3 and HIF-1α in MDA-MB-231, EMT6 and 4T1 cells transfected with control or LSD1-targeting siRNA for 48 hours. β-actin was used as loading control. (B) Immunoblot analysis of c- Myc, p65, STAT3 and HIF-1α in MDA-MB- 231 and EMT6 cells treated with increasing concentrations of SP2509 for 24 hours. (C, D) qRT-PCR analysis of p65 and Stat3 mRNA expression in EMT6 and MDA-MB- 231 cells transfected with control or LSD1 siRNA for 48 hours. LSD1, lysine-specific demethylase 1; mRNA, messenger RNA. ### Page 8 8JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open accessFigure 3 LSD1 regulates STAT3 and p65 through distinct mechanisms. (A) Co-immunoprecipitation analysis in EMT6 cells using antibodies against STAT3, p65 or LSD1, followed by immunoblot detection of the indicated proteins. IgG served as a control. (B) Ubiquitination assay in EMT6 cells transfected with HA-ubiquitin and treated with SP2509 (10 μM, 24 hours) and MG132 (20 μM, 8 hours), followed by STAT3 immunoprecipitation and immunoblot analysis. (C) Schematic of tiling ChIP primers spanning −392 to +254 bp relative to the p65 TSS. (D) ChIP-qPCR analysis of H3K4me2 and H3K9me2 occupancy at the p65promoter in EMT6 cells transfected with control or LSD1 siRNA. (E) TCGA analysis showing positive correlations between CD47 and p65 (RELA), and between CD47 and STAT3 expression in all breast tumors as well as in basal-like tumors. ChIP, chromatin immunoprecipitation; LSD1, lysine-specific demethylase 1; qPCR, quantitative PCR; TCGA, the Cancer Genome Atlas;TSS, transcription start site. ### Page 9 9JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open accessFigure 4 LSD1 suppresses CD47 expression through downregulation of p65 and STAT3. (A) qRT-PCR analysis of p65, Stat3and Cd47 expression in EMT6 cells transfected with control (pCMV3-N-GFPSpark), RELA/NF-κB (p65) or STAT3 expression plasmids for 48 hours. (B) Immunoblot analysis of p65, STAT3 and CD47 in EMT6 cells transfected as in (A) (CD47 antibody: Cell Signaling Technology/36096). (C, D) Immunoblot analysis of CD47 in EMT6 cells co-transfected with control or LSD1 siRNA together with control or p65 expression plasmids (C) or STAT3 expression plasmids (D) for 48 hours (CD47 Antibody: Cell Signaling Technology, #36096). (E) Schematic of tiling ChIP primers spanning −1305 to +21 bp relative to the CD47 TSS. (F) ChIP-qPCR analysis of p65 and STAT3 occupancy at the CD47 promoter in EMT6 cells transfected with scramble control or LSD1- targeting siRNA. Data are representative of three independent experiments with similar results. ChIP, chromatin immunoprecipitation; LSD1, lysine-specific demethylase 1; mRNA, messenger RNA; qPCR, quantitative PCR; qRT-PCR,quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; TSS, transcription start site. ### Page 10 10JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open accessTo elucidate the mechanism by which LSD1 facilitates NF-κB and STAT3 recruitment to the CD47 promoter, we performed tiling ChIP assays spanning ~1.3 kb upstream of the TSS (figure 4E). STAT3 binding was localized to −654 to −944 bp region (P5), whereas p65 occupied a broader region spanning −576 to −1186 bp (P4-P6) (online supplemental figure 5A,B). Quantitative ChIP analysis further demonstrated that siRNA-mediated knockdown of LSD1 markedly reduced p65 enrichment at the P4 and P6 regions and significantly diminished STAT3 binding at P5 (figure 4F). These findings indicate that LSD1 is required for efficient recruitment of both NF- kB and STAT3 to the CD47 promoter, functioning as a key chromatin regulator that integrates these signaling pathways to drive CD47 transcription.Downregulation of CD47 by LSD1 inhibition promotes M1-type macrophage phagocytosis and antitumor immunityMacrophages play a pivotal role in tumor immune surveil- lance, and their ability to phagocytose tumor cells is crucial for eliminating malignant cells. However, many cancers evade this defense by upregulating CD47, which inhibits macrophage recognition and suppresses phago- cytic clearance. 47 To assess whether LSD1 inhibition enhances macrophage-mediated phagocytosis, EMT6 cells transfected with control or LSD1-targeting siRNA were co-cultured with RAW 264.7 murine macrophages, followed by evaluation of phagocytic activity. LSD1 depletion in EMT6 cells significantly increased macro- phage engulfment, as demonstrated by enhanced uptake observed via microscopy (figure 5A; online supplemental figure 6A). This effect was further confirmed by flow cytometry using EMT6 cells expressing control or LSD1 shRNA. Tumor cells were labeled with Hoechst 33342, co- cultured with RAW 264.7 macrophages for 2 hours, stained with a PE-conjugated F4/80 antibody, and analyzed by flow cytometry. LSD1 inhibition significantly increased macrophage- mediated phagocytosis (figure 5B; online supplemental figure 6B). To validate these find- ings in a more physiologically relevant system, primary mouse bone marrow-derived macrophages (mBMDMs) were used. Consistent with results obtained in RAW 264.7 cells, LSD1 depletion markedly enhanced phagocytosis of EMT6 tumor cells by mBMDMs (figure 5C; online supple- mental figure 6C). RT-PCR analyses showed that treat- ment with SP2509 significantly upregulated the mRNA expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemok- ines, including Tnf-α, Il- 6, Cxcl9, and Cxcl10, in RAW 264.7 cells (figure 5D). Correspondingly, protein levels of these factors were also elevated following SP2509 treatment (figure 5E). The induction of these immune mediators aligns with changes in macrophage polarization markers toward an M1 phenotype.48 Moreover, immunoblot analysis demonstrated that SP2509 treatment (10 μM) decreased arginase 1 expression while increasing iNOS levels in RAW 264.7 cells (figure 5E), further supporting the conclusion that LSD1 inhibition promotes the switch from an M2- like to an M1-like macrophage phenotype. Next, we investigated how CD47 inhibition reshapes the immune landscape by profiling key immune-regulatory factors in EMT6 cells. qPCR analysis revealed that treat- ment with CD47-specific siRNA led to a marked upregu- lation of Th1- associated chemokines (Ccl4, Cxcl9, Cxcl10) and the pro-inflammatory cytokine Ifn-γ (figure 5F), potent mediators of monocyte activation and chemoat- tractants for NK cells and Th1 T cells. In contrast, CD47 silencing significantly reduced the expression of the immunosuppressive chemokine Ccl2 (figure 5F). CCL2 and its receptor CCR2 play critical roles in promoting tumor cell survival and invasion, pathological angiogen- esis, and the recruitment of immune-suppressive cells. 49 Western blot confirmed that CD47 depletion increased CXCL9 and CXCL10 expression (figure 5G). ELISA of culture supernatants from EMT6 cells treated with CD47 siRNA revealed elevated extracellular CXCL9 and CXCL10 levels (figure 5H), indicating enhanced secre- tion of Th1-type chemokines that promote CTL recruit- ment. Ex vivo chemotaxis assays further demonstrated that human peripheral blood-derived CD8+T cells migrated more efficiently toward conditioned medium from CD47-depleted MDA- MB-231 cells (figure 5I). Collectively, these results demonstrate that CD47 inhibition, potentiated by LSD1 depletion, enhances both innate and adaptive anti- tumor immunity in TNBC.LSD1 inhibition potentiates in vivo response of TNBC tumors to CD47 blockadeTo determine whether LSD1 inhibition enhances the therapeutic efficacy of anti-CD47 treatment in TNBC, BALB/cJ mice bearing EMT6 tumors were treated with SP2509 in combination with an anti-CD47 mAb (online supplemental figure 7A). Monotherapy with either agent reduced tumor growth by approximately 30% relative to controls. In contrast, combination therapy elicited a substantially greater antitumor effect, achieving more than 70% tumor growth inhibition (figure 6A,B). At the study endpoint, tumors were harvested and weighed. In line with tumor volume measurements, tumors from the combination group were significantly lighter than those from control or single-agent groups (figure 6C). No evidence of systemic toxicity was observed during treat- ment, as indicated by stable body weights and the absence of treatment-related mortality across all groups (online supplemental figure 7B). To further assess in vivo treat- ment safety, liver and kidney tissues were examined histo- logically using H&E staining. No overt histopathological abnormalities were observed following either mono- therapy or combination treatment (online supplemental figure 8). IHC analysis revealed that both SP2509 and anti-CD47 mAb monotherapies reduced Ki-67 expression, whereas combination therapy elicited a more pronounced decrease, indicating enhanced suppression of tumor cell proliferation (online supplemental figure 9A). CD47 expression was significantly reduced in EMT6 tumors treated with SP2509 or combination therapy. Macrophage ### Page 11 11JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open accessFigure 5 CD47 suppression by LSD1 inhibition enhances macrophage phagocytosis and tumor immunogenicity. (A) Representative images of RAW 264.7 macrophages engulfing EMT6 cells transfected with scramble or Lsd1 siRNA. Macrophages were labeled with PKH26 (red) and tumor cells with Hoechst 33342 (blue). (B, C) Phagocytosis of Hoechst 33342- labeled EMT6 cells expressing scramble or Lsd1 shRNA after 2 hours co-culture with RAW 264.7 macrophages (B) or mBMDMs (C), assessed by PE-F4/80 staining and flow cytometry (n=3). (D) qRT-PCR analysis of Cxcl9, Cxcl10, Tnf-α and Il6expression in RAW 264.7 macrophages treated with SP2509 (5 or 10 μM) for 24 hours. β-actin was used as an internal control. (E) Immunoblot analysis of CXCL9, CXCL10, TNF-α, IL-6, arginase 1 and iNOS in RAW 264.7 macrophages treated with SP2509 (5 or 10 μM) for 24 hours. (F) qRT-PCR analysis of indicated immune- related genes in EMT6 cells transfected with scramble orCd47 siRNA for 48 hours. (G) Immunoblot analysis of CXCL9 and CXCL10 in EMT6 cells transfected with scramble or Cd47siRNA for 48 hours. (H) ELISA quantification of CXCL9 and CXCL10 in supernatants from EMT6 cells transfected with scramble or Cd47 siRNA for 48 hours. (I) Chemotaxis assay assessing CD8+T cell migration in response to conditioned media from MDA-MB- 231 cells transfected with scramble or CD47 siRNA for 48 hours. Data are mean±SD of three independent experiments. CXCL,chemokine (C- X- C motif) ligand; IL, interleukin; LSD1, lysine-specific demethylase 1; mBMDMs, mouse bone marrow-derived macrophages; mRNA, messenger RNA; qRT-PCR, quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; TNF, tumor necrosis factor. ### Page 12 12JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open accessFigure 6 LSD1 inhibitor enhances antitumor efficacy of CD47 antibody. (A) EMT6 cells were orthotopically implanted into the mammary fat pads of female BALB/cJ mice. Once tumors became palpable, mice (n=7 per group) received intraperitoneal injections of vehicle/IgG (DMSO and IgG2a isotype control), SP2509 (50 mg/kg, daily), anti-CD47 mAb (5 mg/kg, every 3 days), or the combination. Tumor volumes are shown as mean±SD (mm3 ). SP2509 versus combination, ***p<0.001; CD47 versus combination, **p<0.01; Veh/IgG versus combination, ***p<0.001; Veh/IgG versus SP2509, *p<0.05. ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc multiple comparison test. (B) Tumors were excised and imaged at the experimental endpoint. (C) Tumor weights were recorded at necropsy and are shown as mean±SD. (D) Representative immunohistochemical staining of CD47, F4/80, iNOS, arginase 1, and CD8 in paraffin-embedded tumor sections from mice treated as in (A). (E) AOD values quantify the mean staining intensity of the indicated markers in tumors (n=3). ANOVA, analysis of variance; AOD, average optical density; DMSO, dimethyl sulfoxide; IHC, immunohistochemistry; LSD1, lysine-specific demethylase 1; mAb, monoclonal antibody. ### Page 13 13JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open accessinfiltration (F4/80+) was increased in these groups, with the greatest enrichment observed following combina- tion treatment (figure 6D,E). Notably, the combina- tion regimen upregulated the M1 macrophage marker iNOS while downregulating the M2 marker arginase 1 relative to control and monotherapy groups, suggesting enhanced innate immune activation. We next assessed the impact of combination therapy on T-cell infiltration within the tumor microenvironment. SP2509 mono- therapy increased CD8+T cell infiltration, which was further enhanced by combination therapy (figure 6D,E). No significant changes in CD4+T cell infiltration were observed across treatment groups (online supplemental figure 9B). To validate these findings, multiplex immuno- fluorescence staining was conducted on tumor samples to profile immune cell subsets, including macrophages (CD68, iNOS, arginase 1) and T cells (CD3, CD8, CD4). Our results indicate that the combination treatment promoted macrophage polarization toward an M1-like phenotype, which was closely associated with enhanced CD8+ T- cell infiltration in EMT6 tumors (online supple- mental figures 10 and 11). Furthermore, we examined the in vivo regulation of NF-κB and STAT3 signaling in response to therapy. Both SP2509 monotherapy and combination treatment with anti-CD47 mAb significantly reduced NF-κB and STAT3 expression in tumors (figure 7A). Combination therapy also robustly upregulated CXCL9/10 and granzyme B, a cytotoxic serine protease produced by CTLs and NK cells that induces apoptosis in target cells (online supplemental figure 12A). Consistent with the effects of CD47 siRNA in EMT6 cells, CD47 blockade in tumors suppressed Ccl2mRNA expression while increasing Ccl4 and Ifn-γ levels (online supplemental figure 12B). To assess potential causality and feedback regulation between LSD1 and CD47, we examined LSD1 protein expression following CD47 knockdown via siRNA, as well as in tumors treated with anti- CD47 monotherapy. CD47 depletion, achieved by either siRNA or antibody treatment, did not alter LSD1 protein levels (online supplemental figure 12C,D), indi- cating that although LSD1 regulates CD47 expression, this relationship is not bidirectional and CD47 does not provide feedback regulation of LSD1. To investigate the role of CD8+T cells in the antitumor efficacy of combination therapy, EMT6 cells were orthot- opically implanted into the mammary glands of mice, followed by treatment with vehicle/isotype IgG, anti-CD8 mAb, or SP2509 plus anti- CD47 mAb, in the presence or absence of a CD8-depleting mAb (online supplemental figure 13A). Combination therapy significantly inhibited tumor growth; however, this effect was largely abrogated by CD8+T cell depletion (figure 7B,C). Tumor weights were consistent with volume measurements (figure 7D), and all treatments were well tolerated, with no signifi- cant changes in body weight (online supplemental figure 13B). Immunofluorescence staining confirmed that anti-CD8 mAb effectively blocked CD8 T-cell infiltration induced by combination therapy (online supplemental figure 13C,D). Flow cytometric analysis showed that combination therapy increased the infiltration of M1 macrophages (F4/80+CD11c+) while decreasing M2 macrophages (F4/80+CD206+), resulting in a signifi- cantly elevated M1/M2 ratio (figure 7E,F), indicative of enhanced macrophage-mediated antitumor immunity. CD8+T cell depletion reversed these effects, reducing M1 macrophages, increasing M2 macrophages, and lowering the M1/M2 ratio (figure 7E,F). These findings demon- strate that CD8+T cell activation enhances the therapeutic efficacy of the combination treatment by promoting M1 polarization of TAMs and strengthening the antitumor immune response to CD47 blockade. In summary, these results demonstrate that LSD1 inhibition downregulates CD47 in TNBC, enhancing the antitumor efficacy of anti-CD47 therapy. Combina- tion treatment not only suppresses tumor proliferation but also promotes innate and adaptive immune activa- tion, including macrophage polarization toward the M1 phenotype and CD8+T cell tumor infiltration. These findings support a model in which LSD1 regulates CD47-associated transcriptional pathways, including NF-κB and STAT3, thereby modulating tumor immunity and response to combination therapy (figure 7G).DISCUSSIONElevated CD47 expression correlates with several key pathological features of TNBC, such as EMT, advanced tumor stages, lymph node metastasis, and increased recurrence risk.50 CD47 upregulation promotes immune evasion by enabling tumor cells to escape macrophage-mediated phagocytosis through interaction with SIRPα, a receptor expressed on macrophages. Despite these associations, the molecular mechanisms regulating CD47 expression and function in TNBC remain incompletely understood. Using an engineered BRCA1-deficient mouse model, we observed that CD47 expression was signifi- cantly upregulated during tumorigenesis, coinciding with an increased proportion of immunosuppressive M2 macrophages and a concomitant reduction in antitumor M1 macrophages. These findings provide the first direct evidence of CD47 dysregulation in the pathogenesis of TNBC resulting from BRCA1 loss. Elevated CD47 expres- sion has also been associated with homologous recom- bination deficiency and pathogenic BRCA mutations in ovarian cancer.51 Recent studies further show that CD47 overexpression promotes immune evasion in BRCA1-deficient ovarian tumors and that anti-CD47 therapies can enhance the efficacy of PARP inhibitors.52 Neverthe- less, the precise role of CD47 in driving BRCA1-mutant tumor initiation and progression remains unclear. Our previous work identified LSD1 as a critical regu- lator of mammary tumor initiation and progression following BRCA1 loss.38 In this study, we show that CD47 upregulation in BRCA1-deficient tumors correlates with increased LSD1 expression. However, the mechanisms through which LSD1 controls CD47 expression in BC have ### Page 14 14JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open accessFigure 7 Depletion of CD8 T cells compromises the antitumor effect of combination therapy. (A) Representative immunohistochemical staining of NF-κB (p65) and STAT3 in EMT6 tumors treated with vehicle/isotype IgG control, SP2509, CD47 mAb, or combination therapy. AOD values represent the mean staining intensity of NF-κB (p65) and STAT3 in tumors (n=3). (B) Female BALB/cJ mice (n=7 per group) bearing EMT6 tumors were treated with vehicle/IgG (DMSO and IgG2a or IgG2b isotype controls), anti-CD8 mAb (250 μg per mouse, every 4 days), or the combination of SP2509 (50 mg/kg, daily) and anti-CD47 mAb (5 mg/kg, every 3 days), with or without CD8 mAb. Tumor growth was monitored by caliper measurements and the volumes are presented as mean±SD (mm3 ). Veh/IgG versus combination, ***p<0.001; combination versus CD8 mAb+combination, **p<0.01; CD8 mAb versus CD8 mAb+combination, ***p<0.001. ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc multiple comparison test. (C) Tumors were excised and imaged at the experimental endpoint. (D) Primary tumors were collected, and tumor weights were measured for each animal at necropsy. (E) Tumor-infiltrating macrophages were analyzed by flow cytometry. Single-cell suspensions were stained with antibodies against CD45, CD11b, F4/80, CD11c, and CD206. M1-like macrophages were defined as CD45+CD11b+F4/80+CD11c+, and M2- like macrophages as CD45+CD11b+F4/80+CD206+. (F) Quantification of M1- like and M2-like macrophages and the M1/M2 ratio in tumors. Combo: combination. (G) Proposed model illustrating the role of LSD1 in regulating CD47 signaling and the response to anti-CD47 therapy. ANOVA, analysis of variance; AOD, average optical density; DMSO, dimethyl sulfoxide; IHC, immunohistochemistry; LSD1, lysine-specific demethylase 1; mAb, monoclonal antibody. ### Page 15 15JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open accessremained unclear. We demonstrate that LSD1 inhibition selectively reduces the expression of NF-κB and STAT3, two key transcription factors involved in CD47 regulation. Notably, LSD1 regulates these factors through distinct mechanisms. We further identified a physical interaction between LSD1 and STAT3 and found that LSD1 inhibi- tion promotes STAT3 polyubiquitination, suggesting a post- translational mode of regulation. Prior studies have shown that LSD1 demethylates STAT3 at specific target promoters, thereby enhancing STAT3 activation and downstream transcriptional activity. 44 Consistent with this, a recent study by Ladaika et al revealed that LSD1, in collaboration with CoREST, facilitates STAT3 demethyla- tion, promoting chromatin binding and enteroendocrine cell differentiation in mucinous colorectal cancer. 53 Our findings expand the understanding of LSD1’s multifac- eted role in regulating CD47 expression by coordinating NF-κB and STAT3 activity, revealing previously unrec- ognized regulatory mechanisms underlying CD47 over- expression. Importantly, CD47 depletion did not alter LSD1 protein levels, indicating that while LSD1 regu- lates CD47, the relationship is not reciprocal. Whether a causal relationship or feedback loop exists during early tumorigenesis remains unresolved, and additional studies are needed to define the broader molecular landscape through which LSD1 influences CD47 regulation. The M1 macrophage phenotype is well recognized for its capacity to enhance antitumor immunity by activating other immune cells and promoting tumor cell killing.48 Our data show that LSD1 inhibition increases macrophage phagocytic activity and drives M2-to- M1 repolarization, suggesting that this shift may potentiate the antitumor functions of TAMs. The concurrent suppression of NF-κB and STAT3 signaling following LSD1 inhibition further indicates that targeting these pathways may help alleviate the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that often limits effective immune responses. Moreover, we observed that CD47 inhibition elevates IFN-γ and Th1-type chemokine expression and enhances CD8+T cell migration. These findings support a model in which macrophages, through tumor cell phagocytosis, may prime CD8+T cells and thereby amplify antitumor immu- nity. This is consistent with prior evidence showing that M1- like TAMs stimulate and recruit CD8+T cells, whereas M2- like TAMs suppress T-cell activity.54 Conversely, signals from CD8+T cells can reprogram TAMs from a protumor M2 phenotype toward an antitumor M1 state, high- lighting a dynamic and reciprocal interaction essential for effective immune responses.55 Our results also under- score the role of Th1-type chemokines, such as CXCL9 and CXCL10, in recruiting CD8+T cells into tumors. This chemokine- mediated recruitment appears to be a key mechanism by which CD47 inhibition enhances immune-cell infiltration and strengthens antitumor immunity. CD47- targeting monoclonal antibodies have emerged as a promising therapeutic strategy in BC due to CD47’s central role as an immune checkpoint that enables tumor immune evasion. 20 By blocking CD47, these antibodies disrupt the “don’t-eat- me” signal, thereby enhancing immune recognition and clearance of malignant cells. Despite this therapeutic potential, several challenges continue to limit the clinical translation of CD47-directed mAbs.56 57 A major barrier is on-target toxicity, as CD47 is broadly expressed on both tumor and normal cells, including erythrocytes, leading to adverse effects such as anemia and thrombocytopenia. 56 Another major chal- lenge is the limited selectivity of CD47- targeted agents. Achieving robust tumor-specific activity while preserving normal tissue integrity remains a significant obstacle for the clinical use of these therapies. These clinical chal- lenges highlight the need for more refined therapeutic approaches, including rational combination strategies, to improve efficacy and safety. Our in vivo studies demonstrate that combining LSD1 inhibition with CD47 mAb therapy significantly enhances the therapeutic index in syngeneic TNBC models while maintaining acceptable toxicity in mice. These find- ings suggest that LSD1 inhibition lowers CD47 expres- sion on tumor cells, and that pairing this effect with an anti- CD47 antibody blocks the remaining CD47, thereby amplifying macrophage-mediated tumor clear- ance. This dual approach may also enable reduced anti- body dosing to mitigate toxicity and may provide more sustained suppression of CD47, which can re-emerge between treatment cycles. Immune profiling revealed that this combination strengthens antitumor immunity by promoting M1 macrophage polarization and allevi- ating the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Mechanistically, this is achieved through suppression of NF-κB and STAT3 signaling, along with increased expres- sion of antitumor cytokines and chemokines, including IFN-γ, CXCL9, and CXCL10, that facilitate CD8+T cell recruitment into tumors. As a result, the combination enhances macrophage-mediated phagocytosis and primes CD8+T cells, culminating in a more robust anti- tumor immune response. Recent studies have shown that bispecific antibodies (BisAbs) targeting both CD47 and PD- L1 can improve macrophage-CTL crosstalk while reducing toxicity compared with single-agent checkpoint blockade. 58 Several PD- L1/CD47 BisAbs are currently undergoing clinical evaluation.59 However, challenges remain, including immune-related toxicity, tumor hetero- geneity, resistance mechanisms, and pharmacokinetic limitations.56 60 Our previous work demonstrated that LSD1 inhibition enhances T- cell infiltration and syner- gizes with PD- 1 blockade to promote TNBC eradication.31 These findings suggest that combining LSD1i with BisAbs targeting CD47/PD-L1 may help overcome the obsta- cles associated with this dual ICB, warranting further investigation. In conclusion, our study demonstrates that LSD1 inhibi- tion reduces CD47 expression by downregulating NF-κB and STAT3 signaling, thereby enhancing macrophage-mediated antitumor immunity through the promotion of an M2-to- M1 shift in TAMs. This strategy targets the crit- ical crosstalk between epigenetic modulators and immune ### Page 16 16JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open accesscomponents, offering a novel therapeutic approach for BC patients with poor immune responses. As LSD1 inhib- itors advance in clinical trials, combining them with anti-CD47 therapy holds considerable promise for improving the efficacy of BC immunotherapy.Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the support and assistance from the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology, Oncology, and Blood and Marrow Transplantation. The flow data presented were obtained at the Flow Cytometry Facility, which is a Carver College of Medicine/Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center core research facility at the University of Iowa. The facility is funded through user fees and the generous financial support of the Carver College of Medicine, Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Iowa City Veteran's Administration Medical Center. The authors also acknowledge the use of the Central Microscopy Research Facility, a core resource supported by the University of Iowa Vice President for Research and the Carver College of Medicine.Contributors FJ: Conceptualization, methodology, experimental conduct, data analysis, manuscript writing and editing. YS: Experimental conduct, data analysis. BL: Methodology, resources, manuscript reviewing and editing. MH: Consulting, resources, manuscript reviewing and editing; ND: Consulting, manuscript reviewing and editing; YH: Conceptualization, methodology, supervision, funding support, project administration, manuscript writing and editing. All the authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript. YH is the guarantor and corresponding author.Funding This work was supported by National Cancer Institute grant CA260357 (to YH), the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (to ND), and Grant P30CA086862 from the National Cancer Institute, administered through the Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center at The University of Iowa.Competing interests None declared.Patient consent for publication Not applicable.Ethics approval Not applicable.Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request. The data generated in this study are available upon reasonable request. Comparison of gene expressions in different types of breast cancer was analyzed using TCGA data downloaded from GSE62944. Gene relationship was analyzed using TIMER 3.0 (https://compbio.cn/timer3/).Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.Open access This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non- commercial. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.ORCID iDsFengjie Jiang https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1668-5851 Yi Huang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9982-117XREFERENCES1 Nolan E, Lindeman GJ, Visvader JE. Deciphering breast cancer: from biology to the clinic. Cell 2023;186:1708–28.2 Harbeck N, Penault-Llorca F, Cortes J, et al. Breast cancer. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2019;5:66.3 Ye F, Dewanjee S, Li Y, et al. Advancements in clinical aspects of targeted therapy and immunotherapy in breast cancer. Mol Cancer2023;22:105.4 Hanker AB, Sudhan DR, Arteaga CL. Overcoming Endocrine Resistance in Breast Cancer. Cancer Cell 2020;37:496–513.5 Raman R, Debata S, Govindarajan T, et al. Targeting Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Resistance Mechanisms and Therapeutic Advancements. Cancer Med 2025;14:e70803.6 Garcia- Martinez L, Zhang Y, Nakata Y, et al. Epigenetic mechanisms in breast cancer therapy and resistance. Nat Commun 2021;12:1786.7 Yin J, Gu T, Chaudhry N, et al. Epigenetic modulation of antitumor immunity and immunotherapy response in breast cancer: biological mechanisms and clinical implications. Front Immunol2023;14:1325615.8 Adams S, Gatti-Mays ME, Kalinsky K, et al. Current Landscape of Immunotherapy in Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncol 2019;5:1205.9 Li H, Chang Y, Jin T, et al. Progress of PD-1/PD- L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of triple- negative breast cancer. Cancer Cell Int 2025;25:139.10 Ren Y, Song J, Li X, et al. Rationale and Clinical Research Progress on PD- 1/PD- L1-Based Immunotherapy for Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Int J Mol Sci 2022;23:8878.11 Sabit H, Adel A, Abdelfattah MM, et al. The role of tumor microenvironment and immune cell crosstalk in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): Emerging therapeutic opportunities. Cancer Lett2025;628:217865.12 Mantovani A, Locati M. Tumor- associated macrophages as a paradigm of macrophage plasticity, diversity, and polarization: lessons and open questions. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol2013;33:1478–83.13 Pe KCS, Saetung R, Yodsurang V, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer influences a mixed M1/M2 macrophage phenotype associated with tumor aggressiveness. PLoS One 2022;17:e0273044.14 Feng M, Jiang W, Kim BYS, et al. Phagocytosis checkpoints as new targets for cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer 2019;19:568–86.15 Logtenberg MEW, Scheeren FA, Schumacher TN. The CD47-SIRPαImmune Checkpoint. Immunity 2020;52:742–52.16 Zhang H, Lu H, Xiang L, et al. HIF-1 regulates CD47 expression in breast cancer cells to promote evasion of phagocytosis and maintenance of cancer stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2015;112:E6215–23.17 Casey SC, Tong L, Li Y, et al. MYC regulates the antitumor immune response through CD47 and PD- L1. Science 2016;352:227–31.18 Betancur PA, Abraham BJ, Yiu YY, et al. A CD47-associated super-enhancer links pro-inflammatory signalling to CD47 upregulation in breast cancer. Nat Commun 2017;8:14802.19 Gao Y, Zhang X, Ding M, et al. Targeting “don’t eat me” signal: breast cancer immunotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2025;211:277–92.20 Chen C, Wang R, Chen X, et al. Targeting CD47 as a Novel Immunotherapy for Breast Cancer. Front Oncol 2022;12:924740.21 Guo X, Fu Y, Baran N, et al. CD47-Targeted Therapy in Cancer Immunotherapy: At a Crossroads of Promise and Challenge. Oncol Res 2025;33:3375–85.22 Huang Y, Nayak S, Jankowitz R, et al. Epigenetics in breast cancer: what’s new? Breast Cancer Res 2011;13:225.23 Katz TA, Huang Y, Davidson NE, et al. Epigenetic reprogramming in breast cancer: from new targets to new therapies. Ann Med2014;46:397–408.24 Shi Y, Lan F, Matson C, et al. Histone Demethylation Mediated by the Nuclear Amine Oxidase Homolog LSD1. Cell 2004;119:941–53.25 Lee MG, Wynder C, Cooch N, et al. An essential role for CoREST in nucleosomal histone 3 lysine 4 demethylation. Nature New Biol2005;437:432–5.26 Amente S, Lania L, Majello B. The histone LSD1 demethylase in stemness and cancer transcription programs. Biochim Biophys Acta2013;1829:981–6.27 Lan F, Nottke AC, Shi Y. Mechanisms involved in the regulation of histone lysine demethylases. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2008;20:316–25.28 Tan AHY, Tu W, McCuaig R, et al. Lysine-Specific Histone Demethylase 1A Regulates Macrophage Polarization and Checkpoint Molecules in the Tumor Microenvironment of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Front Immunol 2019;10:1351.29 Cao C, Vasilatos SN, Bhargava R, et al. Functional interaction of histone deacetylase 5 (HDAC5) and lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1) promotes breast cancer progression. Oncogene2017;36:133–45.30 Vasilatos SN, Katz TA, Oesterreich S, et al. Crosstalk between lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1) and histone deacetylases mediates antineoplastic efficacy of HDAC inhibitors in human breast cancer cells. Carcinogenesis 2013;34:1196–207.31 Qin Y, Vasilatos SN, Chen L, et al. Inhibition of histone lysine-specific demethylase 1 elicits breast tumor immunity and enhances antitumor efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade. Oncogene2019;38:390–405. ### Page 17 17JiangF, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2026;14:e014681. doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-014681Open access32 Huang Y, Keen JC, Pledgie A, et al. Polyamine analogues down-regulate estrogen receptor alpha expression in human breast cancer cells. J Biol Chem 2006;281:19055–63.33 Huang Y, Greene E, Murray Stewart T, et al. Inhibition of lysine-specific demethylase 1 by polyamine analogues results in reexpression of aberrantly silenced genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2007;104:8023–8.34 Huang Y, Hager ER, Phillips DL, et al. A novel polyamine analog inhibits growth and induces apoptosis in human breast cancer cells.Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:2769–77.35 Huang Y, Vasilatos SN, Boric L, et al. Inhibitors of histone demethylation and histone deacetylation cooperate in regulating gene expression and inhibiting growth in human breast cancer cells.Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;131:777–89.36 Katz TA, Vasilatos SN, Harrington E, et al. Inhibition of histone demethylase, LSD2 (KDM1B), attenuates DNA methylation and increases sensitivity to DNMT inhibitor- induced apoptosis in breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014;146:99–108.37 Miyauchi S, Arimoto KI, Liu M, et al. Protocol to study the immune profile of syngeneic mouse tumor models. STAR Protoc2024;5:103139.38 Gu T, Vasilatos SN, Yin J, et al. Restoration of TFPI2 by LSD1 inhibition suppresses tumor progression and potentiates antitumor immunity in breast cancer. Cancer Lett 2024;600:217182.39 Pulaski BA, Smyth MJ, Ostrand-Rosenberg S. Interferon-gamma-dependent phagocytic cells are a critical component of innate immunity against metastatic mammary carcinoma. Cancer Res2002;62:4406–12.40 Matozaki T, Murata Y, Okazawa H, et al. Functions and molecular mechanisms of the CD47-SIRPalpha signalling pathway. Trends Cell Biol 2009;19:72–80.41 Willingham SB, Volkmer J-P, Gentles AJ, et al. The CD47-signal regulatory protein alpha (SIRPa) interaction is a therapeutic target for human solid tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012;109:6662–7.42 Huang CY, Ye ZH, Huang MY, et al. Regulation of CD47 expression in cancer cells. Transl Oncol 2020;13:100862.43 Chen J, Mao C, Han N, et al. Post-translational modifications of Stat3: The state of the art. Cell Signal 2025;135:112048.44 Yang J, Huang J, Dasgupta M, et al. Reversible methylation of promoter-bound STAT3 by histone-modifying enzymes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010;107:21499–504.45 Kim D, Nam HJ, Lee W, et al. PKCα-LSD1- NF-κB- Signaling Cascade Is Crucial for Epigenetic Control of the Inflammatory Response. Mol Cell 2018;69:398–411.46 Shi Y, Whetstine JR. Dynamic Regulation of Histone Lysine Methylation by Demethylases. Mol Cell 2007;25:1–14.47 Matlung HL, Szilagyi K, Barclay NA, et al. The CD47-SIRPα signaling axis as an innate immune checkpoint in cancer. Immunol Rev2017;276:145–64.48 Chen S, Saeed AFUH, Liu Q, et al. Macrophages in immunoregulation and therapeutics. Sig Transduct Target Ther2023;8:207.49 Xu M, Wang Y, Xia R, et al. Role of the CCL2-CCR2 signalling axis in cancer: Mechanisms and therapeutic targeting. Cell Prolif2021;54:e13115.50 Yuan J, Shi X, Chen C, et al. High expression of CD47 in triple negative breast cancer is associated with epithelial-mesenchymal transition and poor prognosis. Oncol Lett 2019;18:3249–55.51 Luo X, Mo J, Zhang M, et al. CD47-a novel prognostic predicator in epithelial ovarian cancer and correlations with clinicopathological and gene mutation features. World J Surg Oncol 2024;22:44.52 Al-Sudani H, Ni Y, Jones P, et al. Targeting CD47-SIRPa axis shows potent preclinical anti- tumor activity as monotherapy and synergizes with PARP inhibition. NPJ Precis Oncol 2023;7:69.53 Ladaika CA, Ghobashi AH, Boulton WC, et al. LSD1 and CoREST2 Potentiate STAT3 Activity to Promote Enteroendocrine Cell Differentiation in Mucinous Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Res2025;85:52–68.54 Pan Y, Yu Y, Wang X, et al. Tumor-Associated Macrophages in Tumor Immunity. Front Immunol 2020;11:583084.55 He L, Tam P-H, Deng C-X. Orchestration of Tumor-Associated Macrophages in the Tumor Cell-Macrophage- CD8 + T Cell Loop for Cancer Immunotherapy. Int J Biol Sci 2025;21:4098–116.56 Chen Q, Guo X, Ma W. Opportunities and challenges of CD47-targeted therapy in cancer immunotherapy. OR 2024;32:49–60.57 Bouwstra R, van Meerten T, Bremer E. CD47-SIRPα blocking- based immunotherapy: Current and prospective therapeutic strategies. Clin Transl Med 2022;12:e943.58 Cheng W, Kang K, Zhao A, et al. Dual blockade immunotherapy targeting PD-1/PD- L1 and CTLA-4 in lung cancer. J Hematol Oncol2024;17:54.59 Wang Y, Ni H, Zhou S, et al. Tumor-selective blockade of CD47 signaling with a CD47/PD-L1 bispecific antibody for enhanced anti-tumor activity and limited toxicity. Cancer Immunol Immunother2021;70:365–76.60 Goebeler ME, Stuhler G, Bargou R. Bispecific and multispecific antibodies in oncology: opportunities and challenges. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2024;21:539–60.