收藏切换
Harnessing the STING pathway for HCC treatment
收藏切换
PDF
Carmen Chak-Lui Wong1, 2, 3, 4, *, Cerise Yuen-Ki Chan1, 2, 3, *, Helen Do-Gai Xue1, 2, 3, *, Chun-Ming Wong1, 2
Cancer Biology & Medicine | 2025, 22(12) : 1423 - 1430
Less
收藏切换
Cancer Biology & Medicine | 2025, 22(12): 1423-1430
EDITORIAL
Harnessing the STING pathway for HCC treatment
Full
Carmen Chak-Lui Wong1, 2, 3, 4, *, Cerise Yuen-Ki Chan1, 2, 3, *, Helen Do-Gai Xue1, 2, 3, *, Chun-Ming Wong1, 2
Affiliations
  • 1Department of Pathology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
  • 2State Key Laboratory of Liver Research, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
  • 3Centre for Oncology and Immunology, Hong Kong Science Park, Hong Kong, China
  • 4Department of Clinical Oncology, Shenzhen Key Laboratory for Cancer Metastasis and Personalized Therapy, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen 518053, China
Published: 2025-12-15 doi: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0434
Outline
收藏切换
Carmen Chak-Lui Wong, Cerise Yuen-Ki Chan, Helen Do-Gai Xue, Chun-Ming Wong. Harnessing the STING pathway for HCC treatment[J]. Cancer Biology & Medicine, 2025 , 22 (12) : 1423 -1430 . DOI: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0434
The cyclic GMP-AMP synthase–stimulator of interferon genes (cGAS-STING) pathway has significantly deepened our knowledge about innate immune sensing. The cGAS-STING pathway was originally identified as having a role in detecting cytosolic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) for stimulating antiviral responses. Recently, the cGAS-STING pathway has increasingly been acknowledged to be important in tumor immunology with deterministic roles in cancer progression and therapeutic responses. This review will discuss the molecular mechanisms underlying cGAS-STING signaling, the paradoxical roles in cancer progression and suppression, and the relevance and translational potential of targeting this pathway, especially in the context of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Emerging research directions and therapeutic strategies that leverage cGAS-STING activation to enhance anti-tumor immunity will also be highlighted.
The cGAS-STING pathway is an evolutionarily conserved mechanism that detects viral DNA and triggers an immune response to protect the host. cGAS packages cytosolic DNA into cGAMP. cGAMP accumulation activates STING in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). STING moves to the Golgi apparatus where it dimerizes and oligomerizes, recruiting TANK-binding kinase 1 (TBK1). STING binding to TBK1 leads to autophosphorylation of TBK1 and phosphorylation of STING. The STING-TBK1 complex mediates binding and dimerization of IRF3, which translocates into the nucleus to mediate the type 1 interferon (IFN) response. In addition, the STING pathway activates nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB), which transcriptionally activates a series of inflammatory cytokines to elicit immune responses. The underlying mechanism has been previously described in more detail1. A recent study showed that adenylosuccinate lyase (ADSL) has a critical role in regulating STING activity. Hypoxia-mediated inhibitory kappa B kinase beta (IKKβ)β promotes ADSL phosphorylation, enabling an interaction with STING in the ER. ADSL generates fumarate, which blocks the interaction of cGAMP with STING. Treatment with an ADSL ER translocation blocking peptide was reported to effectively activate STING and impede tumor growth and enhance anti-tumor efficacy of anti-programed death-1 (PD-1) in murine breast cancer models with increased infiltration and effector functions of CD4+ T, CD8+ T, and natural killer (NK) cells. Clinically, ADSL T350 phosphorylation is also associated with poor clinical outcome in breast cancer patients2.
The cGAS-STING pathway is frequently activated in cancer. Herein we summarize several underlying reasons for an abnormal presence of DNA in the cytosol of cancer cells (Figure 1). First, defects in DNA damage response (DDR) are common in cancer, leading to the generation of DNA breaks and fragments that can leak into the cytoplasm36. Furthermore, cancer treatment (e.g., radiation)7 and DNA repair inhibitor [e.g., poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors] induce additional DNA damage, augmenting DNA fragment leakage into the cytoplasm810. Second, extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA) is another source because ecDNA is within the cytosol of cancer cells11. Third, polyploidy and other nuclear abnormalities in cancer cells cause mis-segregation of chromosomes, further contributing to micronuclei formation and cytosolic DNA accumulation12. Fourth, cancer cells undergo abnormal cell division, which leads to micronuclei formation, and small extranuclear bodies containing chromosomal fragments are within cancer cells13. Fifth, another important contributing factor of cGAS-STING activation in cancer is aberrant epigenetic deregulation, such as global DNA hypomethylation, which might cause decondensation of repetitive elements, leading to DNA damage and micronuclei formation14. All these processes could independently or collectively activate the cGAS-STING pathway in cancer cells.
The most prominent anti-tumor effect of cGAS-STING is mediated through the production of type I IFNs, which activate dendritic cells (DCs), tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), T cells, and NK cells within the tumor microenvironment (TME). STING signaling in DCs enhances antigen presentation capacity by promoting cross-presentation to CD8+ T cells, thereby priming cytotoxic T cells. Upon activation of cGAS-STING, the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules and co-stimulatory molecules on TAMs, such as CD80 and CD86, are upregulated, which enhances the ability to activate cytotoxic T cell. Furthermore, IFN-stimulated secretion of chemokines, like C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 10 (CXCL10), facilitates NK cell recruitment and activation15,16. STING also activates NF-κB-dependent cytokine signaling to mediate the anti-tumor response, which shapes a pro-inflammatory TME and recruits a wide range of immune cells, such as TAMs. In addition to a role in immune cells, STING is expressed in cancer cells to elicit anti-tumor effects. Generally, cGAS-STING induces cancer cell senescence and promotes the secretion of senescence-associated secretory phenotypes (SASPs), such as interleukin (IL)-6/8, for immune clearance. Furthermore, STING activates autophagy to trigger cell death by triggering LC3-associated phagocytosis in tumor cells, leading to lysosomal degradation. More general functions of cGAS-STING have been thoroughly described elsewhere16. Specific findings will be elaborated within the next section in the context of liver cancer. Most of the current findings suggest that the cGAS-STING pathway suppresses cancer development. In addition, some studies have shown that the cGAS-STING pathway elicits persistent inflammation, which promotes cancer. STING-deficient mice are less prone to cancer development in a cutaneous cancer model17. cGAS-STING also promotes non-canonical NF-κB pathway, which fosters a pro-inflammatory yet immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment by recruiting immunosuppressive cells. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α)α and IL-6 recruit immunosuppressive TAMs, which subsequently secrete IL-10, transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β)β, and arginase-1 to suppress T cell cytotoxicity. Recruitment of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) through C-C motif chemokine ligand (CCL)2/CCL5 lead to CD8+ T and NK cell suppression via arginase-1 and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Furthermore, chronic secretion of TNF-α and IL-6 induces inhibitory molecules [e.g., PD-1, T cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain containing 3 (TIM3), and lymphocyte-activation gene-3 (LAG-3)] on T cells, driving CD8+ T cells into a dysfunctional or exhausted state18. Another important finding showed that over-activation of the cGAS-STING pathway increases expression of ER stress and cell death pathways, promoting T cell exhaustion and apoptosis19. Interestingly, a study showed that tumor induces STING-mediated cell death in T cell to bypass immune surveillance20.
Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease [MASLD (formerly NAFLD)] are two major etiologic drivers of HCC, where the STING signaling pathway exhibits a dual role by eliciting persistent inflammation and mediating anti-tumor responses, as described previously. The paradoxical role of the cGAS-STING pathway makes HCC an ideal model to dissect the context-dependent effects of STING activation, such as in the context of HBV or MASLD. Recent studies have illuminated how the cGAS-STING pathway is involved in these contexts, shaping the inflammatory and immune landscape of the liver, and thereby influencing tumorigenesis.
cGAS expression is barely detectable in HCC, whereas STING is present in most HCC cell lines21,22. The mechanisms underlying cGAS silencing in HCC have not been established. Whether cGAS loss contributes to the ability of HBV to evade cGAS-STING-mediated clearance has not been established. Interestingly, our previous studies demonstrated that DEAD-box helicase 41 (DDX41) rather than cGAS is the cytosolic DNA sensor in HCC cells. Our studies showed that DDX41-STING is a common mechanistic pathway through which novel and potent cell cycle inhibitors of polo-like kinase 4 (PLK4) (CFI-400945) and threonine and tyrosine kinase (TTK) (CFI-402257) disrupt crucial processes in centrosome duplication and spindle assembly checkpoint, respectively, resulting in extensive genomic instability, DNA damage, and the formation of micronuclei (Figure 2). Interestingly, PLK4 blockade results in endoreplication in which DNA duplication continues in the absence of cell division, leading to extensive amount of DNA trapped in the cytosol (16N). Although cGAS is inhibited during cell division, HCC cells leverage DDX41 as the cytosolic DNA sensor. This finding might provide a reason why STING is highly activated by a PLK4 inhibitor. In addition, TTK blockade did not result in endoreplication but led to incorrect chromosome segregation and micronuclei formation (Figure 2). All of the abovementioned events stimulate the DDX41-STING pathway in HCC cells. Activation of the STING pathway leads to the production of type I IFN and SASP, creating a pro-inflammatory TME. This process, in turn, recruits and activates immune cell subsets, including NK, CD4+, and CD8+ T cells, which facilitate tumor clearance. Interestingly, our studies demonstrated that the IRF3/IRF7 dimeric complex and NF-κB are responsible for the type I IFN and inflammatory cytokine transcriptional cascade21,22. In another study we demonstrated that a replication-dependent epigenetic regulator [chromatin assembly factor 1 (CAF-1)], which is a histone chaperone, is often overexpressed in HCC and protects HCC cells from STING activation. Knockout of CAF-1 depletes histone H3.1 deposition and results in H3.3 accumulation, leading to open euchromatin structure that renders susceptibility to DNA damage, formation of micronuclei, and subsequent activation of STING in HCC. Knockout of CAF-1 in murine HCC enhances type I IFN, increases CD8+ T cell infiltration, and sensitizes HCC to anti-PD-1 treatment23 (Figure 2).
MASLD is the most rapidly rising etiology of HCC. It has been shown that human patients with MASLD, as well as animals on high-fat diets (HFDs), display high STING expression in non-parenchymal cells compared to liver tissues24. Deletion of STING in myeloid cells in mice fed a HFD specifically alleviates hepatic steatosis, inflammation, and fibrosis. This finding was reversed by transplantation of bone marrow cells from wildtype (WT) mice. STING-deficient macrophages reduce inflammatory markers in response to cGAMP and lipopolysaccharide. Co-culturing experiments with hepatocytes and hepatic stellate cells together with STING-deficient macrophages had fewer inflammatory markers in stellate cells and reduced lipid accumulation in hepatocytes24 (Figure 2). Another interesting study showed that neighbor of BRCA1 gene 1 (NBR1) and p62 counteracted with each other in hepatic stellate cells to regulate STING stability and hence control the level of STING in HCC25. It was shown that NBR1 inhibits the interaction of STING with tripartite motif containing 32 (TRIM32) to prevent STING ubiquitination. NBR1 regulates trafficking of STING from Golgi to achieve tightly controlled STING degradation. p62 interacts with NBR1 and prevents NBR1-mediated degradation of STING in hepatic stellate cells. Therefore, p62 knockout mice were reported to develop HCC, in which the phenotypes could be nullified in p62 and NBR1 double knockout mice. The p62 and NBR1 suppressing and promoting roles in HCC development are dependent on STING-mediated inflammatory responses through CD8+ T cells25. These important microenvironment factors have detrimental roles in eliciting immune responses against tumorigenesis (Figure 2).
Most current studies have suggested that the cGAS-STING pathway represents an attractive target for activation in which STING is the most promising target. Translational efforts have been devoted to the development of STING agonists. The STING pathway can be indirectly activated by other mechanisms, drugs, or cancer treatments, such as radiotherapy/chemotherapy, PARP inhibitors, cell cycle inhibitors, and even epigenetic inhibitors, that can induce DNA damage, micronuclei, and mitochondrial DNA leakage. In addition to the abovementioned PLK4 and TTK inhibitors, our group showed that common cell cycle inhibitors, including chemo- and targeted- drugs (e.g., paclitaxel and palbociclib), are microtubule stabilizers and cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors, as well as aurora kinase inhibitors. Despite the differences in targeting steps in the cell cycle, these cell cycle inhibitors activate the STING pathway through DDX41 but not cGAS. These inhibitors activate the pro-inflammatory cytokines and SASPs to mediate CD4+ T, CD8+ T, and NK cell recruitment. All these inhibitors work synergistically with anti-PD-1 to suppress HCC and improve the survival outcomes of mice with aggressive HCC26.
In addition, blocking nucleases, such as three prime repair exonuclease 1 (TREX1), may cause more cytosolic DNA to accumulate while blocking ectonucleotide pyrophosphatase/ phosphodiesterase 1 (ENPP1), which is involved in the hydrolysis of nucleotide triphosphates and may prevent cGAMP degradation. Both approaches are attractive therapeutic approaches for drug development aimed at activating STING.
Another category of STING agonists includes cGAMP mimics or chemicals that fit into the cyclic dinucleotide (CDN)-binding pocket of STING, such as MSA-2, which bind to STING as a non-covalent dimer to activate the pathway. Interestingly, MSA-2 is one of very few orally available STING agonists, the activity of which is further enhanced in hypoxic environments that are common in the cancer context. MSA-2 activates type I IFN and suppresses murine syngeneic colorectal tumors alone and together with anti-PD-127. The anti-tumor efficiency of MSA-2 in HCC awaits determination. There are many more on-going developments of STING agonists, which have been extensively listed in an excellent review16. Some STING agonists have advanced to clinical trials for the treatment of cancers. Most of these trials are phase I or phase I/II as monotherapy or combined treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Specifically, MK-1454, ADI-S100, TAK-676, BI-1387446, BMS-986301, E7766, SNX281, HG-381, GSK3745417, exoSTING, SYNB1891, SB 11285, MK-2118, and XMT-2056 are the current STING agonists being tested in clinical trials28. The chemical structures, status, indications, and clinical outcomes for the immune checkpoint inhibitors are listed in an excellent review28. These clinical trials should be carefully monitored to balance efficacy and safety for potential adverse effects. The optimal therapeutic window must be identified. Nevertheless, new directions are focusing on innovative approaches that enhance the delivery of STING agonists and induce an immunologically hot tumor environment for better effect using nanomaterial-based systems. RGD@Ce6@MSA-2@Liposome (RCM-Lip) is an example that uses liposome to package MSA-2 with a sonosensitizer (Ce6) that can trigger immunogenic cell death. RCM-Lip also includes RGD, a tumor targeting peptide to increase target precision29. Another example is lipid-coated ZIF-67 nanoparticles, which simultaneously deliver cGAMP and Co2+ to provoke cGAS-STING and type I IFN pathways with higher drug stability and permeability30. Ongoing research and clinical studies are essential to further explore and develop drugs that activate the cGAS-STING pathway, which holds significant promise for cancer therapy (Table 1).
The cGAS-STING pathway, an innate immune and traditionally anti-viral pathway, has emerged as an important pathway in restraining the development of cancer. More importantly, cGAS-STING represents an attractive pathway to be activated as cancer treatment to fully unleash the anti-tumor immune response. The STING pathway is further complicated in HCC by unique features, such as low cGAS expression, and the involvement of alternative DNA sensors, like DDX41. More cytosolic DNA sensors in addition to cGAS and DDX41 are present and need to be further investigated because the expression might be context-dependent, leading to differential responses in various cancer patients or cancer types. STING is expressed in multiple cell types. Future studies can also explore the interplay of STING in various cell types in the TME and how this affects the TME and immune responses in HCC. In addition, how the STING pathway primes the HCC TME at early stages of hepatocarcinogenesis involving chronic inflammation caused by HBV or steatosis is another key question to be addressed. Furthermore, novel biomarkers that can help identify patients suitable for various types of drugs that activate STING are pivotal to advancing clinical trials and improving clinical benefits for these drugs. In conclusion, the cGAS-STING pathway has crucial roles in the TME and is crucial for the anti-tumor immune response. Continuous efforts are essential to further explore more therapeutic approaches that can harness this pathway and improve the clinical outcomes of HCC patients.
1.
Lanng KRB, Lauridsen EL, Jakobsen MR.The balance of STING signaling orchestrates immunity in cancer.Nat Immunol.2024; 25: 1144–57.
2.
Duan Y, Hu Z, Han P, Lei B, Wang S, Wang Z, et al.ADSL-generated fumarate binds and inhibits STING to promote tumour immune evasion.Nat Cell Biol.2025; 27: 668–82.
3.
Erdal E, Haider S, Rehwinkel J, Harris AL, McHugh PJ.A prosurvival DNA damage-induced cytoplasmic interferon response is mediated by end resection factors and is limited by Trex1.Genes Dev.2017; 31: 353–69.
4.
Guan J, Lu C, Jin Q, Lu H, Chen X, Tian L, et al.MLH1 deficiency-triggered DNA hyperexcision by exonuclease 1 activates the cGAS-STING pathway.Cancer Cell.2021; 39: 109–21.e5.
5.
Hartlova A, Erttmann SF, Raffi FA, Schmalz AM, Resch U, Anugula S, et al.DNA damage primes the type I interferon system via the cytosolic DNA sensor STING to promote anti-microbial innate immunity.Immunity.2015; 42: 332–43.
6.
Ho SS, Zhang WY, Tan NY, Khatoo M, Suter MA, Tripathi S, et al.The DNA structure-specific endonuclease MUS81 mediates DNA sensor STING-dependent host rejection of prostate cancer cells.Immunity.2016; 44: 1177–89.
7.
Harding SM, Benci JL, Irianto J, Discher DE, Minn AJ, Greenberg RA.Mitotic progression following DNA damage enables pattern recognition within micronuclei.Nature.2017; 548: 466–70.
8.
Ding L, Kim HJ, Wang Q, Kearns M, Jiang T, Ohlson CE, et al.PARP inhibition elicits STING-dependent antitumor immunity in Brca1-deficient ovarian cancer.Cell Rep.2018; 25: 2972–80.e5.
9.
Pantelidou C, Sonzogni O, De Oliveria Taveira M, Mehta AK, Kothari A, Wang D, et al.PARP inhibitor efficacy depends on CD8+ T-cell recruitment via intratumoral STING pathway activation in BRCA-deficient models of triple-negative breast cancer.Cancer Discov.2019; 9: 722–37.
10.
Shen J, Zhao W, Ju Z, Wang L, Peng Y, Labrie M, et al.PARPi triggers the STING-dependent immune response and enhances the therapeutic efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade independent of BRCAness.Cancer Res.2019; 79: 311–9.
11.
Chen YA, Shen YL, Hsia HY, Tiang YP, Sung TL, Chen LY.Extrachromosomal telomere repeat DNA is linked to ALT development via cGAS-STING DNA sensing pathway.Nat Struct Mol Biol.2017; 24: 1124–31.
12.
Crasta K, Ganem NJ, Dagher R, Lantermann AB, Ivanova EV, Pan Y, et al.DNA breaks and chromosome pulverization from errors in mitosis.Nature.2012; 482: 53–8.
13.
Hatch EM, Fischer AH, Deerinck TJ, Hetzer MW.Catastrophic nuclear envelope collapse in cancer cell micronuclei.Cell.2013; 154: 47–60.
14.
Beck MA, Fischer H, Grabner LM, Groffics T, Winter M, Tangermann S, et al.DNA hypomethylation leads to cGAS-induced autoinflammation in the epidermis.EMBO J.2021; 40: e108234.
15.
Fuertes MB, Kacha AK, Kline J, Woo SR, Kranz DM, Murphy KM, et al.Host type I IFN signals are required for antitumor CD8+ T cell responses through CD8α+ dendritic cells.J Exp Med.2011; 208: 2005–16.
16.
Samson N, Ablasser A.The cGAS-STING pathway and cancer.Nat Cancer.2022; 3: 1452–63.
17.
Ahn J, Xia T, Konno H, Konno K, Ruiz P, Barber GN.Inflammation-driven carcinogenesis is mediated through STING.Nat Commun.2014; 5: 5166.
18.
Hou Y, Liang H, Rao E, Zheng W, Huang X, Deng L, et al.Non-canonical NF-κB antagonizes STING sensor-mediated DNA sensing in radiotherapy.Immunity.2018; 49: 490–503.e4.
19.
Larkin B, Ilyukha V, Sorokin M, Buzdin A, Vannier E, Poltorak A.Cutting edge: activation of STING in T cells induces type I IFN responses and cell death.J Immunol.2017; 199: 397–402.
20.
Wu J, Dobbs N, Yang K, Yan N.Interferon-independent activities of mammalian STING mediate antiviral response and tumor immune evasion.Immunity.2020; 53: 115–26.e5.
21.
Chan CY, Chiu DK, Yuen VW, Law CT, Wong BP, Thu KL, et al.CFI-402257, a TTK inhibitor, effectively suppresses hepatocellular carcinoma.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.2022; 119: e2119514119.
22.
Chan CY, Yuen VW, Chiu DK, Goh CC, Thu KL, Cescon DW, et al.Polo-like kinase 4 inhibitor CFI-400945 suppresses liver cancer through cell cycle perturbation and eliciting antitumor immunity.Hepatology.2023; 77: 729–44.
23.
Chan FF, Yuen VW, Shen J, Chin DW, Law CT, Wong BP, et al.Inhibition of CAF-1 histone chaperone complex triggers cytosolic DNA and dsRNA sensing pathways and induces intrinsic immunity of hepatocellular carcinoma.Hepatology.2024; 80: 295–311.
24.
Luo X, Li H, Ma L, Zhou J, Guo X, Woo SL, et al.Expression of STING is increased in liver tissues from patients with NAFLD and promotes macrophage-mediated hepatic inflammation and fibrosis in mice.Gastroenterology.2018; 155: 1971–84.e4.
25.
Nishimura S, Linares JF, L’Hermitte A, Duran A, Cid-Diaz T, Martinez-Ordonez A, et al.Opposing regulation of the STING pathway in hepatic stellate cells by NBR1 and p62 determines the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma.Mol Cell.2024; 84: 4660–76.e10.
26.
Wong PY, Chan CYK, Xue HDG, Goh CC, Cheu JWS, Tse APW, et al.Cell cycle inhibitors activate the hypoxia-induced DDX41/STING pathway to mediate antitumor immune response in liver cancer.JCI Insight.2024; 9: e170532.
27.
Pan BS, Perera SA, Piesvaux JA, Presland JP, Schroeder GK, Cumming JN, et al.An orally available non-nucleotide STING agonist with antitumor activity.Science.2020; 369: eaba6098.
28.
Wang B, Yu W, Jiang H, Meng X, Tang D, Liu D.Clinical applications of STING agonists in cancer immunotherapy: current progress and future prospects.Front Immunol.2024; 15: 1485546.
29.
Yang H, Li R, Jin S, Tian Y, Wang C, Sun Y, et al.Targeted nanosensitizer-augmented sono-immunotherapy with STING agonist to remodel the immune microenvironment in hepatocellular carcinoma.Acta Biomater.2025; 199: 387–97.
30.
Zhou ML, Liang S, Wang J, Hai LN, Peng YX, Xiong QQ, et al.A rationally designed cyclic dinucleotide amplifier potentiating STING activation for cancer immunotherapy.Adv Funct Mater.2025; 35: 2414918.
Year 2025 volume 22 Issue 12
PDF
55
30
Cite this Article
BibTeX
Article Info
doi: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0434
  • Receive Date:2025-07-30
  • Online Date:2026-04-03
  • Published:2025-12-15
Article Data
Affiliations
History
  • Received:2025-07-30
  • Accepted:2025-11-05
Affiliations
    1Department of Pathology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
    2State Key Laboratory of Liver Research, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
    3Centre for Oncology and Immunology, Hong Kong Science Park, Hong Kong, China
    4Department of Clinical Oncology, Shenzhen Key Laboratory for Cancer Metastasis and Personalized Therapy, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen 518053, China

Corresponding:

References
Share
https://castjournals.cast.org.cn/joweb/cbm/EN/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0434
Share to
QR

Scan QR to access full text

Cite this article
BibTeX
Citations
表12种不同金属材料的力学参数

Family
属数
Number of
genus
种数
Number of
species
占总种数比例
Percentage of
total species (%)

Genus
种数
Number of
species
占总种数比例
Percentage of total
species (%)
鹅膏菌科Amanitaceae 2 11 5.26 鹅膏菌属 Amanita 10 4.78
小菇科 Mycenaceae 2 12 5.74 丝盖伞属 Inocybe 5 2.39
多孔菌科 Polyporaceae 8 14 6.70 蜡蘑属 Laccaria 5 2.39
红菇科 Russulaceae 3 23 11.00 小皮伞属 Marasmius 6 2.87
小菇属 Mycena 11 5.26
光柄菇属 Pluteus 5 2.39
红菇属 Russula 17 8.13
栓菌属 Trametes 5 2.39
关闭全屏
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • RefWorks
  • TxT