SOX Family Cross-Talk in Immune Regulation: Unraveling SOX9 Networks for Cancer Immunotherapy

Abstract

This review synthesizes current research on the complex interplay between SOX9 and other SOX family transcription factors in regulating immune responses, particularly in cancer. We explore foundational mechanisms where SOX9 collaborates with factors like SOX4 and SOX2 to modulate immune cell differentiation, function, and tumor microenvironment composition. The article details methodological approaches for investigating these interactions, troubleshooting challenges in therapeutic targeting, and validating findings through comparative analysis across cancer types. For researchers and drug development professionals, this work highlights the SOX network as a promising frontier for developing novel immunotherapeutic strategies aimed at overcoming immune evasion and treatment resistance.

The SOX Regulatory Network: Foundational Principles and Immune Functions

Structural and Functional Classification of SOX Family Members in Immunity

The SOX (SRY-related HMG-box) family of transcription factors represents a conserved group of nuclear proteins that play pivotal roles in embryonic development, cell fate determination, and tissue homeostasis [1] [2]. Comprising approximately 20 members in mammals, these proteins share a highly conserved high-mobility group (HMG) domain that facilitates DNA binding and bending, thereby altering chromatin architecture and modulating gene transcriptional activity [1] [2]. Beyond their established developmental functions, emerging evidence has illuminated the critical involvement of SOX proteins in immunoregulation, particularly in shaping antitumor immunity [1] [3]. This review provides a comprehensive classification of SOX family members based on their structural characteristics and elaborate their multifaceted functions within the immune landscape, with special emphasis on the contextual interactions of SOX9 with other SOX proteins.

Structural Classification and Characteristics of SOX Proteins

Conserved Domain Architecture

All SOX family members share a defining DNA-binding HMG box domain approximately 79 amino acids in length that interacts with the minor groove of DNA, inducing structural bends that alter chromatin organization [1] [2]. This domain contains a hexameric core sequence (WWCAAW, where W = A/T) and is flanked by the conserved sequence RPMNAFMVW in all SOX proteins except SRY [2]. The HMG domain embeds nuclear localization and export signals that enable nucleocytoplasmic shuttling [3]. Beyond this conserved domain, SOX proteins contain additional functional regions including dimerization domains, transcriptional activation domains (TAM and TAC), and proline/glutamine/alanine-rich regions that facilitate protein-protein interactions and transcriptional regulation [3].

Subgroup Classification

Based on sequence similarity within the HMG domain and functional properties, the SOX family is categorized into eight primary subgroups (A-H) [1] [2]:

• Subgroup A: SRY
• Subgroup B: B1 (SOX1, SOX2, SOX3) and B2 (SOX14, SOX21)
• Subgroup C: SOX4, SOX11, SOX12
• Subgroup D: SOX5, SOX6, SOX13
• Subgroup E: SOX8, SOX9, SOX10
• Subgroup F: SOX7, SOX17, SOX18
• Subgroup G: SOX15
• Subgroup H: SOX30

Members within each subgroup often exhibit redundant or synergistic functions due to their structural similarities [2]. For instance, SOX5, SOX6, and SOX9 (the "SOX Trio") collaboratively regulate cartilage development [2], while SOX4 and SOX11 display synergistic effects on neurogenesis and cartilage growth plate formation [2].

Functional Roles of SOX Subgroups in Immunity

SOX Family in Immune Cell Development and Function

The SOX family governs fundamental processes in immune cell development, differentiation, and function. As summarized in Table 1, specific SOX members play specialized roles across immune cell lineages.

Table 1: Immune Functions of SOX Family Members

SOX Member	Subgroup	Immune Cell Process	Mechanistic Role	Experimental Evidence
SOX4	C	T-cell differentiation	Facilitates T lymphocyte differentiation in thymus [2]	Genetic knockout models [2]
SOX13	D	T-cell function	Regulates lymphocyte differentiation; decreases CD8+ T-cell activity in breast cancer [1] [2]	Expression analysis in TCGA datasets [1]
SOX9	E	γδ T-cell development	Cooperates with c-Maf to activate Rorc and key Tγδ17 effector genes (Il17a, Blk) [3]	Chromatin immunoprecipitation, gene expression analysis [3]
SOX6	D	Erythroid cell maturation	Promotes survival and maturation of erythroid cells [2]	In vitro differentiation models [2]
SOX7	F	Hematopoietic development	Regulates mesodermal bloodline; promotes hematopoietic progenitor cell formation [2]	Embryonic stem cell differentiation models [2]
SOX17	F	Hematopoietic regulation	Primes hemogenic potential in endothelial cells; regulates hematopoietic development [2]	Human embryonic stem cell/induced pluripotent stem cell models [2]

SOX Proteins in Cancer Immune Evasion

Multiple SOX family members contribute to cancer immune evasion through diverse mechanisms. As a central regulator, SOX9 exhibits context-dependent dual functions in immunobiology—acting as both an activator and repressor across diverse immune cell types [3]. SOX9 helps tumor cells maintain a stem-like state and evade innate immunity by remaining dormant for extended periods [1]. In prostate cancer, single-cell RNA sequencing reveals that SOX9 enrichment is associated with an "immune desert" microenvironment characterized by decreased effector immune cells (CD8+CXCR6+ T cells) and increased immunosuppressive cells (Tregs, M2 macrophages) [3].

Other SOX members also contribute significantly to immunosuppression. SOX4 inhibits the expression of genes in innate and adaptive immune pathways critical to protective tumor immunity [1]. SOX11 expression is associated with an immunosuppressive microenvironment characterized by increased Treg cell infiltration and downregulation of antigen processing, presentation, and T-cell activation [1]. SOX12 increases intratumoral Treg infiltration and decreases CD8+ T-cell infiltration in liver cancer [1]. SOX18 promotes the accumulation of Tregs and immunosuppressive tumor-associated macrophages in the liver cancer microenvironment by transactivating PD-L1 and CXCL12 [1]. SOX17 inhibits tumor cells' ability to sense and respond to IFNγ, thereby preventing anti-tumor T-cell responses [1].

SOX Family Regulation of Immune Checkpoints

Several SOX proteins directly regulate immune checkpoint molecules. SOX2 overexpression correlates with upregulation of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) on tumor cell surfaces, promoting immune escape [1]. SOX10 regulates immune checkpoint protein expression and anti-tumor immunity in melanoma [1]. SOX18 transactivates PD-L1 in liver cancer, contributing to an immunosuppressive microenvironment [1]. Computational analyses of TCGA data further confirm that SOX9 expression correlates with immune checkpoint expression in glioblastoma, indicating its involvement in the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment [4].

SOX9: A Pivotal Immunomodulator with Context-Dependent Functions

SOX9 as a Janus-Faced Immunoregulator

SOX9 exemplifies the complex, context-dependent nature of SOX proteins in immunology, acting as a "double-edged sword" [3]. In cancer contexts, SOX9 generally promotes immune escape by impairing immune cell function, making it a potential therapeutic target. Conversely, in tissue repair and inflammation scenarios, increased SOX9 levels help maintain macrophage function, contributing to cartilage formation, tissue regeneration, and repair [3]. This functional duality underscores the importance of cellular context in understanding SOX9 immunobiology.

SOX9 Interaction Network with Other SOX Members

SOX9 operates within a complex network of interactions with other SOX family members. As a member of subgroup E, SOX8 and SOX9 display functional redundancy in Sertoli cell development, cord formation, and testis differentiation [2]. In cartilage development, SOX9 collaborates with SOX5 and SOX6 as the "SOX Trio" to regulate extracellular matrix formation and cellular metabolism [2]. Although similar cooperative relationships in immune regulation remain less characterized, emerging evidence suggests analogous collaborative networks may operate in immunomodulation.

Experimental Models and Methodologies for SOX-Immunity Research

Key Experimental Approaches

Research elucidating SOX family functions in immunity employs diverse methodological approaches:

• Bioinformatics Analysis: Integration of RNA sequencing data from TCGA and GTEx databases reveals SOX expression patterns and correlations with immune cell infiltration [4] [5] [6]. Differential gene expression analysis, functional enrichment analysis (GO/KEGG), and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) identify SOX-related immunological pathways [4] [6].
• Immune Infiltration Quantification: Algorithms such as ssGSEA (single-sample gene set enrichment analysis) and ESTIMATE evaluate relationships between SOX expression and immune cell abundance in tumor microenvironments [4] [6] [7].
• Genetic Manipulation: SOX overexpression plasmids (e.g., OE-SOX13) and knockout models demonstrate causal relationships between SOX expression and immune phenotypes [7].
• In Vitro Functional Assays: Cell proliferation, migration, and invasion assays (e.g., Transwell) assess functional consequences of SOX modulation in immune contexts [7].

Figure 1: Experimental Workflow for Investigating SOX Family in Immunity. This diagram outlines the common research pipeline, from data mining to mechanistic validation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for SOX-Immunity Investigations

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Key Function
Expression Plasmids	SOX13-overexpression plasmid (OE-SOX13) [7]	Gain-of-function studies	Enables mechanistic investigation of SOX overexpression effects
Cell Line Models	KTC-1, TPC-1 (thyroid cancer) [7]	In vitro functional assays	Provides cellular context for proliferation, migration studies
Bioinformatics Tools	TIMER2.0, cBioPortal, LinkedOmics [6] [7]	Computational analysis	Evaluates SOX expression, mutation, immune correlation
Antibodies	Anti-SOX13, Anti-NFE2L2, Anti-TFRC [7]	Protein detection	Enables Western blot validation of protein expression
Chemical Reagents	RSL3 (ferroptosis inducer) [7]	Pathway modulation	Investigates connections between SOX and cell death pathways
4-Tert-butyl-2,6-bis(hydroxymethyl)phenol	4-Tert-butyl-2,6-bis(hydroxymethyl)phenol|CAS 2203-14-7	4-Tert-butyl-2,6-bis(hydroxymethyl)phenol is a high-purity, multifunctional scaffold for research. This product is for research use only (RUO) and not for human or veterinary use.	Bench Chemicals
1-Arabinofuranosyl-5-ethynylcytosine	1-Arabinofuranosyl-5-ethynylcytosine	1-Arabinofuranosyl-5-ethynylcytosine is a cytosine analog for research use only (RUO). Explore its potential applications in anticancer and antiviral studies. Not for human or veterinary use.	Bench Chemicals

Concluding Perspectives

The structural and functional classification of SOX family members reveals a sophisticated regulatory network governing immune responses. While significant progress has been made in understanding individual SOX proteins, particularly SOX9, future research should focus on elucidating the collaborative interactions between different SOX subgroups in immunological processes. The development of SOX-targeted therapeutic strategies must account for the context-dependent functions of these transcription factors, particularly their dual roles in cancer immunity versus tissue repair. Advancements in single-cell technologies and computational modeling will continue to refine our understanding of how SOX proteins orchestrate immune responses in health and disease.

The Sex-determining Region Y-related High-Mobility Group Box 9 (SOX9) transcription factor exemplifies biological duality in immune regulation. As a member of the evolutionarily conserved SOX family, SOX9 plays context-dependent roles that can either promote or suppress immune responses, earning its characterization as a "Janus-faced" regulator [3]. This transcription factor, characterized by its highly conserved HMG box DNA-binding domain, functions as a critical modulator of immune cell development, differentiation, and function [3] [8]. While SOX9 was initially recognized for its fundamental roles in chondrogenesis, sex determination, and organ development, recent research has illuminated its significant involvement in immunological processes, particularly in cancer immunity and inflammatory diseases [3] [2].

The Janus-faced nature of SOX9 manifests distinctly across different pathological contexts. In cancer, SOX9 frequently acts as an oncogene, promoting tumor immune escape by creating an immunosuppressive microenvironment [3] [1]. Conversely, in tissue repair and homeostasis, SOX9 contributes to macrophage-mediated maintenance of tissue integrity and regeneration [3]. This review systematically compares the dual immune functions of SOX9, examining its mechanistic basis, contextual determinants, and therapeutic implications within the broader landscape of SOX family immunobiology.

Structural Basis for SOX9's Functional Versatility

SOX9's functional versatility stems from its modular domain architecture and capacity for diverse molecular interactions. The protein contains several functionally specialized domains: an N-terminal dimerization domain (DIM), the central HMG box domain responsible for DNA binding, and two transcriptional activation domains (TAM and TAC) at the central and C-terminal regions, along with a proline/glutamine/alanine (PQA)-rich domain [3]. The HMG domain enables SOX9 to bind DNA at the specific consensus sequence (A/TA/TCAAA/TG), inducing DNA bending that alters chromatin organization and facilitates transcriptional regulation [3] [9].

Table 1: Structural Domains of SOX9 and Their Functional Roles

Domain	Position	Key Functions	Molecular Interactions
Dimerization Domain (DIM)	N-terminal	Facilitates DNA-dependent dimerization	Enables formation of SOX9 homodimers or heterodimers with partner factors
HMG Box	Central	DNA binding, nuclear localization, chromatin remodeling	Binds minor groove of DNA at ACAAAG-like motifs; contains NLS/NES signals
Transcriptional Activation Domain (TAM)	Central	Transcriptional activation	Synergizes with TAC to augment transcriptional potential
Transcriptional Activation Domain (TAC)	C-terminal	Transcriptional activation, β-catenin inhibition	Interacts with cofactors (Tip60); essential for chondrocyte differentiation
PQA-rich Domain	C-terminal	Transcriptional activation	Enriched in proline, glutamine, alanine residues; necessary for full activity

SOX9's functional diversity is further enhanced through post-translational modifications including phosphorylation, SUMOylation, and acetylation, which modulate its stability, DNA-binding affinity, and subcellular localization [8]. For instance, protein kinase A (PKA)-mediated phosphorylation enhances SOX9's DNA-binding capacity and promotes its nuclear translocation [8]. The transcription factor also exhibits pioneer factor capabilities in certain contexts, enabling it to bind silent chromatin regions and initiate chromatin opening, as demonstrated during endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EndMT) [9].

SOX9 in Immune Suppression: Mechanisms and Pathways

SOX9-Mediated Tumor Immune Evasion

In the oncology context, SOX9 predominantly functions as an immunosuppressive agent that facilitates tumor immune escape through multiple mechanisms. Extensive bioinformatics analyses of tumor samples reveal that SOX9 expression correlates significantly with altered immune cell infiltration patterns, generally favoring an immunosuppressive microenvironment [3]. SOX9 overexpression negatively correlates with the infiltration and function of cytotoxic immune cells including CD8+ T cells and natural killer (NK) cells, while positively correlating with immunosuppressive cell populations such as regulatory T cells (Tregs) and M2 macrophages [3] [1].

SOX9 contributes to the establishment of an "immune desert" microenvironment, particularly in prostate cancer, where it promotes enrichment of immunosuppressive cells including Tregs and M2 macrophages while reducing populations of effector immune cells like CD8+CXCR6+ T cells [3]. This reshaping of the tumor immune landscape creates favorable conditions for immune evasion and tumor progression. Additionally, SOX9 helps maintain cancer stem cells in a dormant, stem-like state, enabling them to evade innate immune surveillance and resist therapeutic interventions [1].

Table 2: SOX9-Mediated Immunosuppressive Mechanisms in Cancer

Mechanism	Observed Effects	Experimental Evidence
Altered Immune Cell Infiltration	Negative correlation with B cells, resting mast cells, monocytes, plasma cells, eosinophils; Positive correlation with neutrophils, macrophages, activated mast cells, naive/activated T cells [3]	Bioinformatics analysis of TCGA colorectal cancer data
Impairment of Cytotoxic Immune Cells	Negative correlation with genes associated with CD8+ T cell function, NK cells, and M1 macrophages [3]	Gene expression correlation analysis in tumor samples
Stemness Maintenance	Promotes cancer stem cell dormancy and evasion of innate immunity [1]	Functional studies in multiple cancer models
Chemotherapy Resistance	Induces transcriptional reprogramming to stem-like state resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy [10]	Single-cell RNA sequencing in ovarian cancer patients pre/post chemotherapy

SOX9 in Inflammatory Regulation and Tissue Homeostasis

Beyond cancer, SOX9 demonstrates immune-suppressive functions in inflammatory contexts, particularly through its regulation of macrophage function. Increased SOX9 levels help maintain macrophage functional capacity, contributing to cartilage formation, tissue regeneration, and repair processes [3]. In osteoarthritis, SOX9 activation in mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs), combined with RelA inhibition, enhances chondrogenic potential while suppressing inflammatory responses, resulting in improved joint homeostasis and reduced pathology [11].

The immunomodulatory properties of engineered MSCs with activated SOX9 include promoting the expression of cartilage-beneficial factors, inhibiting catabolic enzyme production in osteoarthritic joints, and suppressing immune cell activation [11]. This application highlights the therapeutic potential of harnessing SOX9's immune-suppressive characteristics for inflammatory disease management.

SOX9 in Immune Activation: Pro-Inflammatory and Protective Functions

Despite its immunosuppressive roles in cancer, SOX9 exhibits immune-activating functions in specific physiological and pathological contexts. In pancreatic beta cells, SOX9 maintains proper immune homeostasis and function, with its depletion leading to dysfunctional insulin secretion and metabolic dysregulation that mimics progressive degeneration observed in type 2 diabetes [12]. This non-canonical role involves SOX9's regulation of alternative splicing in mature beta cells, impacting genes with crucial roles in cellular function [12].

In retinal maintenance, SOX9 prevents degeneration and supports limbal stem cell differentiation in the adult mouse eye [13]. SOX9 ablation triggers severe retinal degeneration characterized by loss of Müller glial cells and complete photoreceptor depletion, demonstrating its essential role in maintaining retinal integrity and preventing inflammatory degeneration [13]. Similarly, during endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EndMT), SOX9 acts as a pioneer factor that reprograms endothelial cells toward a mesenchymal fate, opening chromatin at silent genomic regions and initiating transcriptional programs important for development and disease pathogenesis [9].

SOX9's Dual Immunological Roles

Comparative Analysis of SOX9 Within the SOX Family in Immune Regulation

SOX9's immunoregulatory functions must be understood within the broader context of SOX family biology. Multiple SOX members participate in immune regulation, exhibiting both overlapping and distinct functions. SOX4 facilitates T lymphocyte differentiation in the thymus and inhibits expression of genes in innate and adaptive immune pathways critical to protective tumor immunity [1]. SOX12 increases intratumoral regulatory T-cell (Treg) infiltration while decreasing CD8+ T-cell infiltration in liver cancer [1]. SOX17 inhibits tumor cells' ability to sense and respond to IFNγ, thereby preventing anti-tumor T cell responses [1].

Table 3: Immune Regulatory Functions of SOX Family Transcription Factors

SOX Member	Subgroup	Primary Immune Functions	Role in Cancer Immunity
SOX2	B1	Induces immune evasion of CD8+ T-cell killing by alleviating JAK-STAT pathway and interferon-stimulated gene resistance [1]	Promotes immune escape
SOX4	C	Inhibits genes in innate and adaptive immune pathways; facilitates T lymphocyte differentiation [1]	Suppresses protective tumor immunity
SOX11	C	Associated with immunosuppressive microenvironment with increased Treg infiltration and downregulated antigen presentation [1]	Promotes immune suppression
SOX12	C	Increases Treg infiltration and decreases CD8+ T-cell infiltration in liver cancer [1]	Promotes immune suppression
SOX9	E	Maintains stem-like state for immune evasion; regulates macrophage function; shapes immunosuppressive microenvironment [3] [1]	Dual role (context-dependent)
SOX10	E	Regulates immune checkpoint protein expression and anti-tumor immunity in melanoma [1]	Modulates immune checkpoints
SOX17	F	Inhibits tumor cell response to IFNγ, preventing anti-tumor T cell responses [1]	Suppresses anti-tumor immunity
SOX18	F	Promotes Treg and immunosuppressive TAM accumulation by transactivating PD-L1 and CXCL12 [1]	Creates immunosuppressive niche

The SOX family employs common mechanistic themes in immune regulation, including modulation of antigen presentation pathways, shaping of immunosuppressive microenvironments, and regulation of immune checkpoint molecules [1] [2]. However, SOX9 stands out for its particularly context-dependent functions and direct involvement in both innate and adaptive immune regulation across multiple tissue types.

Experimental Approaches and Research Methodologies

Key Experimental Models for Studying SOX9 in Immunity

Research on SOX9's immune functions employs diverse experimental models and methodologies. In cancer immunology, bioinformatics analyses of large-scale patient data from resources like The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) have revealed correlations between SOX9 expression and immune cell infiltration patterns [3]. Functional validation often employs CRISPR-Cas9 systems for SOX9 knockout, with demonstrated outcomes including increased platinum sensitivity in ovarian cancer models [10].

For studying SOX9 in tissue homeostasis and inflammation, genetically engineered mouse models with conditional Sox9 deletion in specific cell types have been instrumental. These include Ins-Cre;Sox9fl/fl models for pancreatic beta cell function [12], CAGG-CreER;Sox9fl/fl models for retinal homeostasis [13], and MIP-CreERT;Sox9-/- models for adult beta cell function [12]. These models demonstrate tissue-specific immune and inflammatory consequences of SOX9 depletion.

Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has emerged as a powerful tool for delineating SOX9's roles in immune regulation, enabling researchers to track SOX9 expression changes in specific cell populations following interventions like chemotherapy [10] and to identify SOX9-expressing stem cell populations in tissues like the limbus [13].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagents for Studying SOX9 in Immune Regulation

Reagent/Cell Model	Research Application	Key Findings Enabled
HUVECs (Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells)	Endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EndMT) studies	SOX9's pioneer factor function in chromatin remodeling [9]
CRISPR/dCas9-VP64 System	SOX9 transcriptional activation	Enhanced chondrogenic and immunomodulatory potential in MSCs [11]
CRISPR/dCas9-KRAB System	RelA transcriptional repression	Combinatorial approach with SOX9 activation for OA therapy [11]
Syngeneic Mouse Tumor Models	Cancer immune microenvironment studies	SOX9 role in shaping immunosuppressive landscapes [3]
Tamoxifen-Inducible Cre Models (CAGG-CreER)	Temporal control of Sox9 deletion	Role in adult tissue homeostasis and retinal integrity [13]
scRNA-seq of Patient Tumors	Tumor immune microenvironment analysis	SOX9 upregulation following chemotherapy [10]
Sox9fl/fl Conditional Mice	Tissue-specific Sox9 deletion	Beta cell dysfunction and glucose intolerance [12]
9,10-12,13-Diepoxyoctadecanoate	9,10-12,13-Diepoxyoctadecanoate, CAS:3012-69-9, MF:C18H32O4, MW:312.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
(3R)-3-isopropenyl-6-oxoheptanoic acid	(3R)-3-isopropenyl-6-oxoheptanoic acid|C10H16O3

Experimental Approaches for SOX9 Research

Therapeutic Implications and Future Directions

The Janus-faced nature of SOX9 in immune regulation presents both challenges and opportunities for therapeutic development. In oncology, SOX9 inhibition represents a promising strategy to counteract immune suppression and enhance anti-tumor immunity. Potential approaches include small molecule inhibitors targeting SOX9 activity or expression, CRISPR-based transcriptional repression, and combinatorial regimens with existing immunotherapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors [3] [2].

Conversely, in degenerative and inflammatory conditions, SOX9 activation may yield therapeutic benefits. The successful application of CRISPR-activated SOX9 in mesenchymal stromal cells for osteoarthritis treatment demonstrates this potential [11]. Similar approaches might be beneficial for maintaining beta cell function in diabetes [12] or preserving retinal integrity in degenerative eye diseases [13].

Future research should address several critical questions: What molecular switches determine SOX9's dualistic functions in different contexts? How do post-translational modifications direct SOX9 toward immune-activating versus immunosuppressive programs? Can tissue-specific SOX9 modulation be achieved to maximize therapeutic efficacy while minimizing off-target effects? Answering these questions will advance both fundamental understanding and therapeutic targeting of this multifaceted transcription factor.

The complex, context-dependent functions of SOX9 in immune regulation underscore the importance of precise mechanistic understanding for therapeutic development. As research continues to unravel the molecular determinants of SOX9's Janus-faced nature, increasingly sophisticated strategies will emerge to harness its immunomodulatory capacities for cancer therapy, inflammatory disease management, and tissue regeneration.

SOX9-SOX4 Cross-Talk in T-cell Differentiation and Function

The SRY-related HMG-box (SOX) transcription factor family represents a crucial group of regulatory proteins that control diverse aspects of development, stem cell homeostasis, and immune function. Among the 20 SOX family members identified in mammals, SOX9 and SOX4 have emerged as significant regulators in the immune system, particularly in T-cell biology [2]. These transcription factors share structural similarities, including the conserved HMG DNA-binding domain, yet exhibit distinct and often collaborative functions in regulating T-cell development and differentiation [1]. The cross-talk between SOX9 and SOX4 creates a complex regulatory network that helps orchestrate the delicate balance of immune cell fate decisions, with implications for both normal immune function and pathological conditions, including cancer immunology and autoimmune diseases. This review synthesizes current understanding of how these two transcription factors individually and cooperatively influence T-cell differentiation and function, providing a comparative analysis of their mechanisms and downstream effects.

Protein Architecture and DNA Binding Properties

SOX9 and SOX4 belong to different SOX subgroups but share fundamental structural features that enable their transcriptional regulatory functions:

SOX9 (SOXE Subgroup):

• Contains an N-terminal dimerization domain (DIM), central HMG domain, and C-terminal transactivation domains (TAM and TAC) [3]
• The HMG domain contains nuclear localization signals (NLS) and a nuclear export signal (NES) enabling nucleocytoplasmic shuttling [14]
• C-terminal transactivation domain (TAC) interacts with cofactors like Tip60 and is essential for β-catenin inhibition during differentiation [3]

SOX4 (SOXC Subgroup):

• Features the conserved HMG DNA-binding domain that recognizes A/T A/T CAA A/T/G sequences [15]
• Contains transactivation domains that facilitate interactions with various transcriptional co-regulators
• Exhibits pioneer transcription factor activity, capable of initiating chromatin remodeling and cell fate changes [16]

Table 1: Structural and Functional Classification of SOX9 and SOX4

Feature	SOX9	SOX4
SOX Subgroup	SOXE	SOXC
DNA-Binding Domain	HMG box (79 aa) recognizing CCTTGAG	HMG box recognizing A/T A/T CAA A/T/G
Key Functional Domains	DIM, HMG, TAM, TAC, PQA-rich	HMG, Transactivation domains
Regulatory Role in Immunity	T-cell lineage commitment, γδ T-cell function	Thymic tuft cell development, T-cell differentiation
Pioneer Factor Activity	Not established	Demonstrated in cellular reprogramming

SOX4 in Thymic Development and T-Cell Differentiation

Experimental Evidence and Molecular Mechanisms

SOX4 plays fundamental roles in thymic development and early T-cell commitment through specific molecular pathways:

Thymic Tuft Cell Development:

• Experimental Model: Sox4-floxed mice crossed with Foxn1-Cre mice for TEC-specific Sox4 deletion [17]
• Key Finding: SOX4 deficiency significantly reduces thymic tuft cells without affecting other mTEC subsets [17]
• Regulatory Pathway: SOX4 expression is controlled by lymphotoxin β receptor (LTβR) signaling, forming an LTβR-SOX4 axis essential for thymic tuft cell differentiation [17]
• Functional Significance: Thymic tuft cells contribute to self-antigen expression, establishing central T-cell tolerance [17]

T-Lymphocyte Differentiation:

• SOX4 facilitates T lymphocyte differentiation in the thymus [2]
• SOX4 cooperates with other transcription factors to promote early stages of T-cell commitment
• Acts as a positive regulator of β-catenin signaling through upregulation of TCF4 in some contexts [15]

Methodological Approach:

• Flow Cytometry Analysis: TECs prepared by digesting thymic fragments with Liberase TM and DNase I, followed by staining with antibodies against EpCAM, Ly51, MHC class II, CD80, UEA1, and Dclk1 [17]
• Single-Cell RNA Sequencing: Used to analyze thymic stromal cell populations and identify SOX4 expression patterns [17]

Figure 1: LTβR-SOX4 Axis in Thymic Tuft Cell Development. SOX4 expression is regulated by lymphotoxin β receptor (LTβR) signaling and is essential for thymic tuft cell differentiation, which contributes to central T-cell tolerance through self-antigen presentation.

SOX9 in T-cell Lineage Commitment and Function

Molecular Mechanisms in T-cell Regulation

SOX9 exerts specific functions in T-cell biology through defined molecular interactions:

γδ T-cell Lineage Commitment:

• Cooperative Binding: SOX9 cooperates with c-Maf to activate Rorc and key Tγδ17 effector genes (Il17a and Blk) [3]
• Lineage Regulation: Modulates the balance between αβ T-cell and γδ T-cell differentiation from early thymic progenitors [3]
• Experimental Evidence: Demonstrated through chromatin immunoprecipitation and gene expression analysis in thymocyte subsets

Immunomodulatory Functions:

• Immune Evasion: SOX9 helps maintain latent cancer cells in a dormant state with long-term tumor-initiating capabilities, enabling evasion from immune surveillance [18]
• Stemness Maintenance: Sustains stem cell properties in various contexts, which may influence T-cell progenitor populations [14] [2]

Cross-talk with Wnt Signaling:

• SOX9 acts as an important antagonist of the canonical Wnt signaling pathway [14] [19]
• Promotes β-catenin degradation through ubiquitination/proteasome-dependent mechanisms [14]
• Competes with TCF/LEF for β-catenin binding, inhibiting formation of β-catenin/TCF complexes [14]

Figure 2: SOX9-c-Maf Cooperation in γδ T-cell Differentiation. SOX9 cooperates with transcription factor c-Maf to activate Rorc, driving commitment to the Tγδ17 lineage and subsequent expression of effector genes including Il17a and Blk.

Comparative Analysis: SOX9 vs. SOX4 in T-cell Biology

Direct Comparison of Functions and Mechanisms

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of SOX9 and SOX4 in T-cell Biology

Parameter	SOX9	SOX4
Primary Role in Thymus	T-cell lineage commitment	Thymic tuft cell development
Key Molecular Partners	c-Maf, β-catenin	LTβR, TCF4
Effect on T-cell Subsets	Modulates αβ vs. γδ T-cell balance	Supports tolerance-inducing microenvironment
Signaling Pathway Interactions	Antagonizes Wnt/β-catenin pathway	Activates β-catenin/TCF signaling in some contexts
Immune-Related Phenotype of Deficiency	Altered T-cell lineage specification	Reduced thymic tuft cells, potential impact on tolerance
Experimental Evidence Level	Demonstrated in mechanistic studies	Established in genetic mouse models

Synergistic and Complementary Functions

Emerging evidence suggests both collaborative and independent functions of SOX9 and SOX4 in immune regulation:

Collaborative Interactions:

• Liver Development Model: SOX4 and SOX9 cooperate to control cholangiocyte differentiation and bile duct development, suggesting potential for similar cooperation in immune contexts [20]
• Synergistic Effects: Combined deficiency of Sox4 and Sox9 produces more severe phenotypes than individual deficiencies in developing liver [20]

Complementary Roles:

• SOX4 establishes cellular niches (thymic tuft cells) that support tolerance mechanisms
• SOX9 directly programs T-cell lineage fate decisions at the progenitor level
• Both factors influence different aspects of the thymic microenvironment necessary for proper T-cell education

Experimental Approaches and Research Toolkit

Key Methodologies for Studying SOX9-SOX4 Cross-Talk

Genetic Manipulation Approaches:

• Conditional Knockout Models: Foxn1-Cre for TEC-specific deletion; various Cre drivers for hematopoietic cell-specific deletion [17]
• AAV-Mediated Gene Delivery: AAV8-TBG-HA-Sox4-P2A-Cre and similar constructs for ectopic expression studies [16]
• CRISPR-Cas9 Systems: Rosa26-LSL-Cas9-EGFP mice combined with sgRNAs for cell-type specific gene disruption [16]

Analytical Techniques:

• Flow Cytometry: Multicolor panels for identifying thymic stromal cells (EpCAM, Ly51, MHC-II, CD80, UEA1) and T-cell subsets (TCRβ, CD4, CD8, γδ TCR) [17]
• Single-Cell RNA Sequencing: Resolving cellular heterogeneity in thymic stroma and T-cell populations [17]
• Chromatin Immunoprecipitation: Mapping transcription factor binding sites and epigenetic modifications

Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Investigating SOX9-SOX4 Cross-Talk

Reagent/Tool	Specific Application	Function in Research
Sox4-floxed mice	TEC-specific Sox4 deletion	Studying Sox4 function in thymic epithelium
Foxn1-Cre mice	Targeting thymic epithelial cells	Enabling tissue-specific gene manipulation
Anti-Dclk1 antibody	Identifying thymic tuft cells	Marker for thymic tuft cell population
AAV8-TBG-HA-Sox4-P2A-Cre	Ectopic Sox4 expression	Testing sufficiency for cellular reprogramming
Rosa26-LSL-Cas9-EGFP	CRISPR-mediated gene disruption	Cell-type specific gene editing with lineage tracing
UEA1 lectin	Staining medullary thymic epithelium	Identifying specific mTEC subsets
N,N-Dimethyl-N'-phenylsulfamide	N,N-Dimethyl-N'-phenylsulfamide, CAS:4710-17-2, MF:C8H12N2O2S, MW:200.26 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
N-2-Chloroethyl-N-methylaziridinium	N-2-Chloroethyl-N-methylaziridinium, CAS:57-54-5, MF:C5H11ClN+, MW:120.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Implications for Disease and Therapeutic Development

The SOX9-SOX4 regulatory axis has significant implications for immune-related pathologies:

Cancer Immunotherapy:

• SOX9 promotes immune evasion by maintaining cancer cells in dormant, stem-like states [18]
• SOX4 expression correlates with immunosuppressive microenvironments in various cancers [1]
• Both factors represent potential targets for overcoming tumor-induced immunosuppression

Autoimmune Diseases:

• Disruption of thymic tuft cell development (SOX4-dependent) may impair central tolerance
• Altered T-cell lineage specification (SOX9-dependent) could contribute to autoimmune predisposition
• Understanding these pathways may reveal novel therapeutic targets for autoimmune conditions

Immunodeficiency Disorders:

• Defects in SOX9 or SOX4 pathways may contribute to T-cell deficiencies
• Potential for therapeutic modulation of these factors in congenital immunodeficiencies

Future Research Directions

Several key questions remain unanswered in the field of SOX9-SOX4 cross-talk in T-cell biology:

• Do SOX9 and SOX4 directly cooperate in T-cell development as observed in other tissues?
• What are the upstream regulators that coordinate the expression and activity of these factors in the thymus?
• How does the cross-talk between these SOX factors change in pathological conditions?
• Can therapeutic manipulation of this axis enhance anti-tumor immunity or restore tolerance in autoimmunity?

Future studies employing conditional double-knockout models, multi-omics approaches, and sophisticated lineage tracing will be essential to fully elucidate the complex relationship between these transcription factors in T-cell differentiation and function.

SOX9 and SOX2 Cooperative Regulation of Cancer Stemness and Immune Evasion

The SOX family of transcription factors, characterized by a conserved high-mobility group (HMG) box DNA-binding domain, plays pivotal roles in embryonic development, cell fate determination, and stem cell maintenance [21] [1]. Among these members, SOX2 and SOX9 have emerged as critical regulators in oncogenesis, particularly through their influence on cancer stemness and immune evasion. SOX9, a member of the SOXE subgroup, is a 509-amino acid protein containing several functional domains: a dimerization domain (DIM), the HMG box domain, and two transcriptional activation domains (TAM and TAC) [3]. SOX2, belonging to the SOXB1 group, is well-known for its role in maintaining pluripotency in embryonic stem cells [1]. Recent evidence demonstrates that these two transcription factors engage in cooperative signaling networks that drive the maintenance of cancer stem cells (CSCs) and enable tumors to evade immune surveillance. This review systematically compares the individual and synergistic functions of SOX9 and SOX2 in regulating cancer stemness and immune evasion, providing a comprehensive analysis of experimental data and methodologies underlying these findings.

Comparative Roles of SOX9 and SOX2 in Cancer Stemness

SOX9 as a Driver of Stemness and Chemoresistance

SOX9 plays an essential role in maintaining stem-like properties across various cancer types. In high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), SOX9 expression is significantly upregulated following platinum-based chemotherapy, and its epigenetic induction is sufficient to generate a stem-like subpopulation with significant chemoresistance both in vitro and in vivo [10]. Mechanistically, SOX9 increases transcriptional divergence, reprogramming naive cells into a stem-like state [10]. This reprogramming capability establishes SOX9 as a critical regulator of early steps in chemoresistance acquisition through a CSC-like state.

In breast cancer, SOX9 maintains luminal progenitor cells and breast CSCs. It is predominantly expressed in CD49f+EpCAM+ luminal progenitor cells and ALDEFLUOR-positive populations with stem/progenitor properties [22]. SOX9 silencing reduces the ALDH+ cell population, mammosphere formation, and luminal colony formation, while its overexpression increases colony formation and the ALDH+ population [22]. Furthermore, SOX9 is elevated in breast cancer patients after endocrine therapy failure, positioned downstream of SOX2 to control luminal progenitor content and ALDH1A3 expression [22].

SOX2 in Stemness Maintenance

SOX2, a well-established pluripotency factor, contributes significantly to cancer stemness across multiple malignancies. In breast cancer, SOX2 overexpression increases the population of CSCs during development of resistance to tamoxifen [22]. SOX2-dependent activation of Wnt signaling promotes stem-like properties, and its genetic profiling revealed increased SOX9 expression, suggesting a hierarchical relationship where SOX2 operates upstream of SOX9 in regulating stemness [22].

Cooperative Regulation of Stemness

The SOX2-SOX9 axis represents a critical signaling module maintaining cancer stemness. In breast cancer, SOX2 directly induces SOX9 expression, establishing a regulatory hierarchy where SOX9 acts downstream to control luminal progenitor cell content and ALDH1A3 expression [22]. This axis also regulates Wnt signaling activity, further reinforcing the stem-like state. The cooperation between these transcription factors creates a stable molecular framework that maintains the CSC population through multiple reinforcing pathways.

Table 1: Comparative Functions of SOX9 and SOX2 in Cancer Stemness

Feature	SOX9	SOX2
Primary Role in Stemness	Reprograms transcriptional state to stem-like phenotype; maintains luminal progenitors	Activates stemness pathways; increases CSC population
Response to Therapy	Induced by platinum chemotherapy in ovarian cancer; elevated after endocrine therapy in breast cancer	Increases during tamoxifen resistance development
Mechanistic Actions	Increases transcriptional divergence; regulates ALDH1A3 expression; necessary for Wnt signaling	Activates Wnt signaling; induces SOX9 expression
Experimental Evidence	SOX9 knockout reduces tumor growth in vivo; silencing reduces mammosphere formation	Sox2 overexpression increases Sox9 expression and CSC content

SOX9 and SOX2 in Immune Evasion

SOX9-Mediated Immunosuppressive Networks

SOX9 contributes to immune evasion through multiple mechanisms, including the maintenance of cellular dormancy and regulation of immune cell infiltration. Latent cancer cells characterized by high SOX9 expression can remain dormant in secondary metastatic sites and avoid immune surveillance under immunotolerant conditions [18]. Bioinformatic analyses of colorectal cancer data reveal that SOX9 expression negatively correlates with infiltration levels of B cells, resting mast cells, resting T cells, monocytes, plasma cells, and eosinophils, while showing positive correlation with neutrophils, macrophages, activated mast cells, and naive/activated T cells [3]. This alteration of the immune landscape creates an environment conducive to tumor progression.

In prostate cancer, single-cell RNA sequencing analyses demonstrate that SOX9 expression is associated with an "immune desert" microenvironment, characterized by decreased effector immune cells (CD8+CXCR6+ T cells and activated neutrophils) and increased immunosuppressive cells (Tregs and M2 macrophages) [3]. This shift in immune composition represents a sophisticated mechanism through which SOX9-expressing tumors evade anti-tumor immunity.

SOX2 in Immune Evasion

SOX2 contributes to immune evasion by regulating PD-L1 expression on tumor cells and enhancing the immunosuppressive environment through recruitment and activation of regulatory T cells (Tregs) [1]. Additionally, SOX2 induces immune evasion of CD8+ T-cell killing by alleviating the JAK-STAT pathway and interferon-stimulated gene resistance signature expression [1]. These mechanisms enable SOX2-expressing tumors to resist immune-mediated destruction.

Cooperative Immune Evasion Mechanisms

The combined action of SOX9 and SOX2 establishes a powerful framework for immune evasion. Research indicates that both SOX2 and SOX9 are highly expressed in latent cancer cells, where they maintain long-term survival and tumor-initiating capabilities while avoiding immune detection [18]. This cooperative function enables disseminated cancer cells to survive in metastatic sites and eventually initiate overt metastases. The dual expression of these transcription factors represents a strategic adaptation that enhances tumor survival in the face of immune pressure.

Table 2: Immune Evasion Mechanisms Mediated by SOX9 and SOX2

Mechanism	SOX9 Role	SOX2 Role
Immune Cell Infiltration	Negative correlation with anti-tumor immune cells; positive correlation with pro-tumor cells	Potentiates Treg recruitment and activation
Checkpoint Regulation	Associated with PD-L1 transactivation in specific contexts	Upregulates PD-L1 on tumor cell surfaces
Cellular Dormancy	Maintains dormant state in metastatic sites to avoid immune detection	Cooperates with SOX9 in maintaining latent cancer cells
Signaling Pathways	Contributes to "immune desert" microenvironment	Alleviates JAK-STAT pathway and interferon signaling

Experimental Models and Methodologies

Key Experimental Models for Studying SOX9/SOX2 Functions

The functional relationships between SOX9, SOX2, and cancer stemness have been elucidated through diverse experimental approaches. In ovarian cancer models, HGSOC cell lines (OVCAR4, Kuramochi, COV362) treated with carboplatin demonstrated acute SOX9 upregulation within 72 hours at both RNA and protein levels [10]. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated SOX9 knockout significantly increased sensitivity to carboplatin treatment, confirming its functional role in chemoresistance [10].

In breast cancer research, primary human breast epithelial cells isolated from reduction mammoplasties and sorted by FACS using CD49f and EpCAM markers demonstrated that SOX9 is predominantly expressed in luminal progenitor cells (CD49f+EpCAM+) [22]. Lentiviral-mediated SOX9 silencing and overexpression models confirmed its functional role in maintaining the ALDH+ population and mammosphere-forming capacity [22].

For in vivo validation, CRISPR/Cas9-mediated SOX9 knockout in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer cells significantly reduced tumor growth in mouse models, supporting its essential role in maintaining therapeutic resistance [22]. Longitudinal single-cell RNA-Seq analysis of patient tumors before and after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy provided clinical validation of SOX9 induction following treatment [10].

Analytical Methods for Immune Microenvironment Characterization

The immune-regulatory functions of SOX9 have been investigated using advanced computational approaches. Bioinformatic analyses of TCGA data integrated with RNA sequencing have revealed correlations between SOX9 expression and immune cell infiltration patterns [3]. These studies employ algorithms that deconvolute bulk transcriptomic data to infer relative abundances of specific immune cell populations.

Single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics in prostate cancer models have enabled precise characterization of SOX9-mediated alterations in the immune landscape, particularly the shift toward an "immune desert" phenotype [3]. These technologies provide unprecedented resolution for understanding how SOX9 expression reshapes the tumor microenvironment.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Studying SOX9/SOX2 Functions

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application
Cell Line Models	HGSOC lines (OVCAR4, Kuramochi, COV362); Breast cancer lines (MCF10A, T47D, MCF-7)	In vitro modeling of SOX9/SOX2 functions in stemness and drug resistance
Primary Cell Systems	Primary human breast epithelial cells from reduction mammoplasties	Study of normal and malignant stem/progenitor cell biology
Genetic Manipulation Tools	CRISPR/Cas9 for SOX9 knockout; Lentiviral shRNA for SOX9 silencing; Lentiviral overexpression constructs	Functional validation of SOX9/SOX2 in stemness and immune evasion
Animal Models	Patient-derived xenografts; Transgenic mouse models; Tumor transplantation models	In vivo assessment of tumor initiation, metastasis, and therapy resistance
Stemness Assays	ALDEFLUOR assay; Mammosphere formation; Colony formation in soft agar	Quantification of cancer stem cell frequency and functionality
Immunological Assays	Immune cell infiltration analysis by flow cytometry; PD-L1 expression measurement; T cell cytotoxicity assays	Evaluation of immune evasion mechanisms

Signaling Pathway Diagrams

Diagram 1: SOX2-SOX9 Axis in Stemness and Immune Evasion. This diagram illustrates the hierarchical relationship where SOX2 induces SOX9 expression, which subsequently regulates ALDH1A3 and Wnt signaling to promote stemness. Both factors contribute to immune evasion and ultimately therapy resistance.

Diagram 2: SOX9-Mediated Immune Evasion Mechanisms. SOX9 promotes immune evasion through multiple mechanisms: altering immune cell infiltration patterns (decreasing anti-tumor cells while increasing pro-tumor cells), maintaining cellular dormancy, and regulating immune checkpoint molecules like PD-L1, collectively creating an "immune desert" microenvironment.

SOX9-SOX10 Partnerships in Melanoma Immunomodulation and Checkpoint Expression

The SOX family of transcription factors, particularly the SOXE subgroup members SOX9 and SOX10, play pivotal but complex roles in melanoma progression and immunomodulation. While both factors are crucial during neural crest development and melanocyte specification, their functions diverge significantly in the context of melanoma pathogenesis and immune evasion. SOX10 is consistently expressed throughout melanoma progression and is fundamental for tumor initiation and maintenance [23]. In contrast, SOX9 demonstrates a dose-dependent duality, acting as either a tumor suppressor or promoter based on its expression levels [24]. This review systematically compares the partnership between SOX9 and SOX10 in regulating immune checkpoint expression and modulating the tumor microenvironment, providing researchers with experimental data and methodologies essential for advancing therapeutic strategies.

Comparative Functions of SOX9 and SOX10 in Melanoma

Table 1: Comparative analysis of SOX9 and SOX10 in melanoma biology

Feature	SOX10	SOX9
Expression Pattern	Consistently high in normal melanocytes, nevi, and melanoma [23]	Low in normal melanocytes and nevi; variable in melanoma with high levels in metastases [23] [24]
Primary Role in Melanoma	Oncogenic: Promotes initiation, proliferation, and survival [23] [25]	Context-dependent: Anti-tumorigenic at low levels, pro-metastatic at high levels [24]
Regulatory Relationship	Represses SOX9 expression in melanoma [23]	Upregulated when SOX10 is inhibited; can suppress SOX10 via feedback loop [23]
Immune Checkpoint Regulation	Induces PD-L1, CEACAM1, and HVEM expression [26] [25]	Associated with immunosuppressive microenvironment; correlates with immune checkpoint expression [4] [3]
Prognostic Significance	High expression correlated with poor prognosis [27] [28]	High expression in metastases associated with advanced disease [24]

Table 2: SOX9 and SOX10 target genes in melanoma immunomodulation

Target Gene	Regulated By	Function in Melanoma	Experimental Evidence
PD-L1	SOX10 [26]	Immune checkpoint that inhibits T-cell function	SOX10 overexpression increased PD-L1 expression in A375 cells [26]
NEDD9	SOX10 and high SOX9 [24]	Scaffolding protein promoting metastasis and migration	SOX10 knockdown reduced NEDD9; high SOX9 restored NEDD9 expression [24]
CEACAM1	SOX10 [29] [25]	Immune checkpoint molecule inhibiting immune infiltration	Identified as direct SOX10 target [29]
p21	SOX9 (at moderate levels) [24]	Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor inducing cell cycle arrest	Compensatory SOX9 upregulation in SOX10-inhibited cells increased p21 [24]
Matrix Metalloproteinases	SOX9 (at high levels) [24]	Facilitate invasion and metastasis	SOX9 overexpression modulated MMP expression [24]

SOX10-Mediated Immune Suppression Mechanisms

Direct Regulation of Immune Checkpoints

SOX10 directly promotes melanoma immune evasion through induction of multiple immune checkpoint molecules. Experimental evidence demonstrates that SOX10 overexpression in A375 melanoma cells significantly increased PD-L1 expression at both protein and mRNA levels, whereas SOX10 knockdown reduced PD-L1 expression [26]. This PD-L1 induction functionally impaired T-cell recognition, as demonstrated by reduced susceptibility of SOX10-overexpressing cells to NY-ESO-1-specific TCR-transduced T cells in IFNγ ELISPOT assays [26]. Beyond PD-L1, SOX10 also transcriptionally regulates CEACAM1 and HVEM, creating a multi-faceted immune suppressive mechanism [29] [25].

Association with Clinical Outcomes

The immunomodulatory function of SOX10 correlates with clinical outcomes in melanoma patients. Bioinformatic analysis of TCGA data reveals that high SOX10 expression is associated with suppressed immune infiltration and poor prognosis in cutaneous melanoma [27] [28]. SOX10 expression negatively correlates with cytotoxic immune cell infiltration while promoting an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment [27]. This evidence positions SOX10 as both a diagnostic marker and therapeutic target in advanced melanoma.

SOX9's Dual Role in Melanoma Progression

Dose-Dependent Metastatic Fate Determination

SOX9 exhibits a unique dose-dependent duality in melanoma progression that resolves previous contradictory findings in the field. At moderate expression levels, particularly when SOX9 is compensatory upregulated following SOX10 inhibition, SOX9 acts as a tumor suppressor by inducing cell cycle arrest through p21 and failing to activate metastatic pathways [23] [24]. Conversely, when SOX9 expression reaches high levels comparable to those detected in metastatic patient samples, it acquires pro-metastatic functions, promoting invasion, colony formation, and lung metastasis in tail vein injection models [24].

Shared and Distinct Target Genes with SOX10

The functional relationship between SOX9 and SOX10 involves both antagonistic and synergistic regulation of downstream targets. Both factors can transcriptionally activate NEDD9, a metastasis-associated scaffolding protein, though through potentially different mechanisms and with different expression thresholds [24]. The antagonistic cross-regulation occurs through direct binding of SOX9 to the SOX10 promoter, creating a feedback loop that influences melanoma cell fate decisions [23]. This complex regulatory network contributes to melanoma heterogeneity and therapeutic resistance.

Experimental Models and Methodologies

Key Experimental Protocols

Table 3: Essential research reagents for studying SOX9-SOX10 partnerships

Reagent Type	Specific Example	Research Application	Key Function
Cell Lines	A375 melanoma cells [26]	SOX10 perturbation studies	Model for PD-L1 regulation and T-cell recognition assays
Gene Modulation	SOX10 siRNA/shRNA [26] [24]	SOX10 loss-of-function studies	Target gene identification and functional characterization
Gene Overexpression	Lentiviral SOX9 constructs [24]	SOX9 gain-of-function studies	Dose-dependent effect analysis
Functional Assays	IFNγ ELISPOT [26]	T-cell recognition assessment	Quantification of immune cell response
Invasion/Migration Assays	Transwell invasion, live cell imaging [24]	Metastatic potential evaluation	Analysis of focal adhesion dynamics and Rho GTPase activity

Detailed Methodologies

SOX10 Perturbation and PD-L1 Detection: Researchers performed SOX10 overexpression and knockdown in A375 melanoma cells using SOX10 gene transfection and siRNA transfection approaches [26]. PD-L1 expression was quantified 48-72 hours post-transfection using flow cytometry and western blotting [26]. For functional T-cell recognition assays, NY-ESO-1-specific TCR-transduced T cells were co-cultured with melanoma cells, and T-cell activation was assessed by IFNγ ELISPOT assay [26].

Dose-Dependent SOX9 Functional Analysis: To resolve SOX9's dual functions, investigators employed lentiviral transduction to achieve graded SOX9 expression levels in melanoma cells [24]. Low, moderate, and high SOX9 expression levels were correlated with metastatic potential using transwell invasion assays, colony formation assays, and tail vein injection metastasis models [24]. Rho GTPase activation assays (RHOA and RAC1) measured downstream signaling activity, while live cell imaging monitored dynamics of melanoma migratory behavior [24].

Visualization of SOX9-SOX10 Regulatory Networks

Diagram 1: SOX9-SOX10 regulatory network in melanoma. SOX10 (blue) promotes immunosuppression through PD-L1 and CEACAM1 induction. SOX9 exhibits dual functions: at low/moderate levels (green) it induces growth arrest, while at high levels (red) it promotes metastasis. Arrows indicate activation, barred lines indicate repression.

The partnership between SOX9 and SOX10 in melanoma represents a sophisticated regulatory network that balances tumor suppression and progression through dose-dependent mechanisms and direct transcriptional regulation of immunomodulatory factors. SOX10 consistently drives an immunosuppressive program through checkpoint molecule induction, while SOX9's function transitions from growth inhibition to metastasis promotion as its expression increases. This complexity underscores the challenge of targeting these transcription factors therapeutically but also reveals opportunities for context-specific interventions. Future research should focus on quantifying expression thresholds that dictate functional transitions and developing strategies to manipulate the SOX9-SOX10 axis for immune potentiation in melanoma therapy.

SOX9 Interactions with SOX17 in Polarizing Immune Microenvironments

The SOX family of transcription factors, characterized by a conserved high-mobility group (HMG) DNA-binding domain, are master regulators of developmental processes, cell fate determination, and stem cell maintenance [2]. Recent research has illuminated their significant, yet complex, roles in regulating the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME). Among these factors, SOX9 and SOX17 have emerged as critical, albeit functionally distinct, players in polarizing immune responses to favor tumor progression [1] [30]. While both can contribute to immune evasion, they operate through different molecular mechanisms and cellular contexts. SOX9, often described as a "Janus-faced" regulator, exhibits dual roles in both immunomodulation and tissue repair [3]. In contrast, SOX17 has been identified as a crucial facilitator of immune evasion specifically in the early stages of colorectal cancer [30]. This guide provides a direct comparison of their mechanisms, supported by experimental data, to inform research and therapeutic development.

Comparative Analysis of SOX9 and SOX17 in Immune Regulation

The following table summarizes the key functional differences between SOX9 and SOX17 in the context of the tumor immune microenvironment.

Table 1: Functional Comparison of SOX9 and SOX17 in Immune Regulation

Feature	SOX9	SOX17
Primary Immune Role	Context-dependent "double-edged sword"; promotes evasion & tissue repair [3]	Enabler of early immune evasion in colorectal adenomas & cancers [30]
Key Mechanism of Evasion	Modulates immune cell infiltration; sustains cancer stemness [3] [18]	Suppresses tumor cell sensing/response to IFNγ; drives fetal program [30]
Impact on T Cells	Negative correlation with CD8+ T cell and NK cell function [3]	Prevents anti-tumor T cell responses; linked to fewer effector CD8+ T cells [30]
Impact on Other Immune Cells	Associated with Tregs, M2 macrophages, activated neutrophils [3]	Not specifically detailed in search results
Regulation of Immune Checkpoints	Associates with PD-L1, PD-1, CTLA4 pathways [31]	Engages a program leading to lower MHC-I expression [30]

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Investigating SOX9 and SOX17 Immune Functions

Protocol 1: Investigating SOX17-Mediated Immune Evasion in Colorectal Cancer

This methodology is derived from a key 2024 Nature study that defined SOX17's role in early colorectal cancer immune evasion [30].

1. In Vivo Tumor Persistence Assay:

• Objective: To test the necessity of SOX17 for tumor establishment and persistence in an immunocompetent host.
• Procedure:
  • Engineer murine colon cancer organoids with common oncogenic mutations (e.g., Apc-null, KrasG12D, Trp53-null, or "AKP").
  • Generate SOX17-wildtype (SOX17-WT) and SOX17-null (SOX17-KO) clones from these organoids using CRISPR-Cas9.
  • Transplant these isogenic organoids into the native colonic environment of syngeneic mice.
  • Monitor tumor formation and growth over time.
• Key Readouts: Tumor incidence, tumor size, and overall survival of the mice. SOX17-null tumors are expected to show markedly reduced persistence [30].

2. Immune Cell Profiling of the Tumor Microenvironment:

• Objective: To characterize the immune landscape of SOX17-proficient versus SOX17-deficient tumors.
• Procedure:
  • Harvest tumors from the in vivo persistence assay.
  • Process tumor tissue for single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) or flow cytometry analysis.
  • Focus on quantifying infiltrating CD8+ T cells and their activation status (e.g., production of IFNγ).
• Key Readouts: SOX17-null tumors should display significant infiltrates of IFNγ-producing effector-like CD8+ T cells, in contrast to the immune-suppressive microenvironment of SOX17-WT tumors [30].

3. Mechanistic Interferon-Gamma (IFNγ) Sensing/Response Assay:

• Objective: To determine how SOX17 blunts the anti-tumor effects of IFNγ.
• Procedure:
  • Treat SOX17-WT and SOX17-KO tumor cells with recombinant IFNγ in vitro.
  • Analyze the expression of IFNγ-responsive genes, such as those involved in antigen presentation (e.g., MHC-I), by RNA sequencing or qPCR.
  • Evaluate surface MHC-I protein levels using flow cytometry.
• Key Readouts: SOX17-WT cells will show a blunted transcriptional and functional response to IFNγ, including lower basal and induced MHC-I expression [30].

Protocol 2: Defining the Role of SOX9 in Shaping the Immune Microenvironment

This protocol synthesizes approaches from multiple studies investigating SOX9's immunomodulatory functions [3] [31].

1. Bioinformatics Correlation Analysis:

• Objective: To establish associations between SOX9 expression and immune cell infiltration patterns across human cancers.
• Procedure:
  • Acquire RNA-sequencing and clinical data from public repositories like The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA).
  • Using computational tools (e.g., CIBERSORT, EPIC), estimate the abundance of various immune cell types in tumor samples.
  • Correlate SOX9 expression levels with immune cell infiltration scores across a cohort of patients.
• Key Readouts: SOX9 expression typically shows a negative correlation with genes associated with cytotoxic CD8+ T cells and NK cells, and a positive correlation with immunosuppressive cells like regulatory T cells (Tregs) and M2 macrophages [3].

2. In Vitro Co-culture T Cell Activation Assay:

• Objective: To functionally test how SOX9 expression in cancer cells directly affects T cell activity.
• Procedure:
  • Establish cancer cell lines with stable SOX9 overexpression or knockdown.
  • Co-culture these engineered cancer cells with activated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) or purified CD8+ T cells.
  • After co-culture, measure T cell activation markers (e.g., CD69, CD25) on T cells by flow cytometry and quantify cytokine (e.g., IFNγ, Granzyme B) levels in the supernatant by ELISA.
• Key Readouts: Cancer cells with high SOX9 expression are expected to inhibit T cell activation and reduce the production of cytotoxic cytokines [3] [18].

3. In Vivo Validation of Immune Evasion:

• Objective: To confirm SOX9's role in immune evasion in a living organism.
• Procedure:
  • Implant SOX9-high and SOX9-low cancer cells into immunocompetent and immunodeficient mouse models.
  • Monitor tumor growth in both models. A growth advantage for SOX9-high tumors specifically in immunocompetent mice indicates active immune evasion.
  • Analyze tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes at endpoint to validate findings from correlation analyses.
• Key Readouts: SOX9 promotes tumor growth by creating an immunosuppressive microenvironment, a phenotype that is lost in immunodeficient mice [18].

Signaling Pathways and Molecular Interactions

The diagram below illustrates the core mechanisms by which SOX9 and SOX17 contribute to immune evasion.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Models

Table 2: Essential Research Tools for Studying SOX9/SOX17 in Immunity

Tool / Reagent	Function/Description	Key Application
CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing	Enables precise knockout of SOX9 or SOX17 in cancer organoids/cell lines.	Establishing isogenic models to study loss-of-function effects on immune evasion [30].
Syngeneic Mouse Models	Immunocompetent mice transplanted with murine tumor cells.	In vivo validation of immune evasion mechanisms in a intact immune system [30] [18].
Cancer Organoids	3D in vitro structures derived from patient tumors or engineered progenitors.	Modeling early tumor-immune interactions in a native-like tissue context [30].
Recombinant IFNγ	Key cytokine that activates anti-tumor immune responses.	Testing the integrity of the IFNγ sensing and response pathway in tumor cells [30].
Flow Cytometry Panels	Antibody panels for T cells (CD3, CD8, CD4), Tregs (FOXP3), macrophages (CD68, CD163), MHC-I.	Quantifying and characterizing immune cell infiltration in tumor samples [3] [30].
Cordycepin	A natural adenosine analog that inhibits SOX9 expression.	Tool for probing SOX9-dependent mechanisms and potential therapeutic candidate [31].
6-(Decyldithio)-1H-purin-2-amine	6-(Decyldithio)-1H-purin-2-amine, CAS:78263-87-3, MF:C15H25N5S2, MW:339.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
(R)-tembetarine	(R)-tembetarine, MF:C20H26NO4+, MW:344.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Methodological Approaches for Studying SOX Interactions and Therapeutic Applications

CRISPR/Cas9 and Cre-LoxP Models for SOX Network Functional Validation

The functional validation of SOX transcription factor networks, particularly SOX9 and its interactions within the SOX family, represents a critical frontier in immune regulation research. This comparison guide objectively evaluates two fundamental gene editing technologies—CRISPR/Cas9 and Cre-LoxP—for their application in dissecting SOX network functions. We examine performance metrics including editing efficiency, temporal control, multiplexing capability, and applicability to different research scenarios. Supported by experimental data and detailed methodologies, this guide provides researchers with a framework for selecting appropriate gene editing approaches for investigating SOX-mediated immune regulation in cancer, development, and therapeutic contexts.

The SOX family of transcription factors, characterized by their conserved high-mobility group (HMG) box DNA-binding domain, plays pivotal roles in embryonic development, cell fate determination, and immune regulation. SOX9, a key member of the SOXE group, exhibits context-dependent functions in immunology, acting as a "double-edged sword" in cancer immunity [3]. On one hand, SOX9 promotes immune escape by impairing immune cell function, making it a potential therapeutic target in cancer. On the other hand, increased SOX9 levels help maintain macrophage function, contributing to cartilage formation, tissue regeneration, and repair [3]. This functional duality necessitates precise genetic tools for mechanistic studies.

The convergence of SOX network research with advanced gene editing technologies has created unprecedented opportunities for functional validation. CRISPR/Cas9 and Cre-LoxP systems have emerged as powerful tools for manipulating SOX gene expression and function, each offering distinct advantages and limitations. CRISPR/Cas9 provides direct genome editing capability through a two-component system consisting of a Cas9 nuclease and a single-guide RNA (sgRNA) that can be programmed to target specific DNA sequences [32]. The Cre-LoxP system, derived from P1 bacteriophage, enables site-specific genetic manipulation through recombination events between 34-base pair loxP sites [33]. Understanding the comparative performance of these systems is essential for designing rigorous experiments to unravel the complex SOX network interactions in immune regulation.

CRISPR/Cas9 System Fundamentals

The CRISPR/Cas9 system has revolutionized genetic engineering through its programmable RNA-guided DNA targeting capability. The most commonly used Cas9 nuclease from Streptococcus pyogenes (spCas9) creates double-strand breaks (DSBs) in genomic DNA at sites complementary to a 20-nucleotide guide sequence within the sgRNA and adjacent to a 5'-NGG-3' protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) [32]. These DSBs trigger endogenous DNA repair mechanisms, primarily non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), which often results in insertions or deletions (indels) that disrupt gene function, or homology-directed repair (HDR), which enables precise genetic modifications using donor DNA templates [32].

The simplicity of retargeting CRISPR/Cas9 to new genomic loci by modifying the sgRNA sequence enables high-throughput functional genomics. CRISPR/Cas9 can be delivered to cells as plasmid DNA, in vitro transcribed mRNA, ribonucleoprotein complexes, or viral vectors, providing flexibility for different experimental applications [32]. The technology supports diverse genetic manipulations including gene knockouts, knockins, base editing, transcriptional regulation, and epigenetic modifications, making it particularly valuable for studying complex transcription factor networks like the SOX family.

Cre-LoxP System Fundamentals

The Cre-LoxP system provides a highly specific recombination platform for genetic manipulation. Cre recombinase recognizes 34-bp loxP sites (5'-ATAACTTCGTATAatgtatgcTATACGAAGTTAT-3') and catalyzes recombination between them, leading to excision, inversion, or integration of intervening DNA sequences depending on the relative orientation of the loxP sites [33]. This system enables conditional gene regulation through strategies such as Cre-mediated excision of stop cassettes preceding oncogenes or tumor suppressors, allowing spatial and temporal control over gene expression [34].

The Cre-LoxP system requires prior genetic modification to introduce loxP sites into the genome, typically through homologous recombination in embryonic stem cells. Once established, these genetically engineered lines provide a robust platform for inducible genetic manipulation through controlled Cre recombinase expression. Tissue-specific promoters, inducible expression systems, and viral delivery of Cre enable precise control over the timing and location of genetic recombination, making this system particularly valuable for in vivo studies of SOX network function in specific immune cell populations or developmental contexts.

Hybrid and Combined Approaches

Innovative strategies that combine CRISPR/Cas9 and Cre-LoxP technologies have emerged to leverage the advantages of both systems. The CRISPR/Cas9-loxP system integrates the targeting flexibility of CRISPR/Cas9 with the precise recombination capability of Cre-LoxP [33]. In one implementation, CRISPR/Cas9 is used to introduce loxP sites into specific genomic loci, which can subsequently be recombined using Cre recombinase [33]. This approach streamlines the generation of complex genetic models that previously required extensive embryonic stem cell manipulation.

More sophisticated cascade strategies such as CasPi (cascaded precise integration) combine CRISPR-Cas9, Cre-lox, and Flp-FRT recombination in a multi-step process for precise integration of large DNA constructs [35]. This system first introduces a promoter and lox71 docking site to a specific genomic location via Cas9-induced DSB repair, then inserts a gene of interest via Cre-mediated recombination, and finally excises the selection cassette using Flp-FRT recombination [35]. Such integrated approaches enable complex genetic manipulations that are challenging with any single technology.

Performance Comparison and Experimental Data

Editing Efficiency and Precision

Table 1: Efficiency Metrics of CRISPR/Cas9 and Cre-LoxP Systems

Parameter	CRISPR/Cas9	Cre-LoxP	Experimental Context
Gene Knockout Efficiency	9% of transfected cells (NHEJ-mediated 2.5-Mb deletion) [36]	56.0%-63.6% excision efficiency (plasmid reporter) [33]	Mouse ESCs (CRISPR) vs. HEK293 cells (Cre-LoxP)
Large Deletion Efficiency	31%-63% with targeting vectors (2.5-Mb region) [36]	Limited by loxP insertion efficiency	Mouse ESCs (2.5-Mb KRAB-ZFP cluster deletion)
Biallelic Modification	Achievable in single step [36]	Requires breeding or dual targeting	Mouse ESCs and in vivo models
Indel Patterns	Preferential deletions (64%-68% at human AAVS1 locus) [33]	Precise excision without indels	Chromosomal vs. episomal DNA editing
Temporal Control	Limited without inducible systems	Excellent with inducible Cre systems	In vivo tumor models

Data from multiple studies demonstrate that CRISPR/Cas9 achieves higher efficiency for large deletions compared to traditional methods, with 31%-63% deletion efficiency for a 2.5-Mb region when using targeting vectors with selectable markers in mouse embryonic stem cells [36]. The Cre-LoxP system shows high recombination efficiency (56.0%-63.6%) in plasmid-based reporter systems [33], with efficiency in chromosomal contexts dependent on loxP site accessibility and Cre delivery method.

CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing typically produces heterogeneous indels, with patterns differing between episomal and chromosomal targets. At the human AAVS1 safe harbor locus, NHEJ repair favors deletion patterns (64%-68%) compared to plasmid DNA (4%-28%) [33]. In contrast, Cre-LoxP recombination provides precise excision without introducing secondary mutations, making it preferable for applications requiring clean deletion boundaries.

Applications in Disease Modeling

Table 2: Sarcoma Modeling with CRISPR/Cas9 vs. Cre-LoxP

Characteristic	CRISPR/Cas9-Generated Sarcomas	Cre-LoxP-Generated Sarcomas	Reference Model
Tumor Onset	Median 9.6 weeks [34]	Median 11.3 weeks [34]	KP mouse model
Tumor Incidence	100% in KC mice [34]	100% in KP mice [34]	Intramuscular delivery
Histological Spectrum	Majority UPS (10/12), minority myogenic UPS (2/12) [34]	Similar spectrum	Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma
Genetic Complexity	Simple (Kras activation + Trp53 knockout) [34]	Simple (Kras activation + Trp53 knockout) [34]	Oncogene + tumor suppressor
Clonality	Primarily monoclonal with biallelic Trp53 modification [34]	Monoclonal	Cell line derivation

Comparative studies in sarcoma modeling demonstrate that CRISPR/Cas9 can generate autochthonous tumors with similar histology, growth kinetics, and mutational profiles to those generated using conventional Cre-LoxP technology [34]. Sarcomas generated in Kras^LSL-G12D/+; Rosa26^{LSL-Cas9-EGFP/+} (KC) mice via intramuscular injection of adenovirus expressing sgTrp53 and Cre (Ad-P-Cre) showed tumor onset and histology comparable to sarcomas generated in Kras^LSL-G12D/+; Trp53^Flox/Flox (KP) mice using Ad-Cre [34].

Whole exome sequencing revealed that sarcomas generated by both technologies had similar mutational loads and copy number variations [34], supporting the utility of CRISPR/Cas9 for rapid in vivo cancer modeling without extensive breeding. The majority of CRISPR/Cas9-generated sarcomas showed biallelic Trp53 modification, indicating high efficiency of somatic genome editing [34].

Experimental Protocols for SOX Network Validation

CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated SOX Gene Editing

The following protocol outlines CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs), which can be adapted for SOX family gene manipulation:

sgRNA Design and Validation:

• Identify sgRNA target sites near the 5' end of the SOX gene coding sequence using online tools (e.g., CHOPCHOP, CRISPR Design Tool) [32]
• Select sgRNAs with high on-target activity and minimal off-target potential using predictive algorithms
• Clone sgRNA sequences into expression vectors (e.g., pX330) using BbsI restriction sites [32]
• Validate sgRNA activity using in vitro cleavage assays with purified Cas9 protein or through surrogate reporter systems

Stem Cell Transfection and Selection:

• Culture hPSCs in feeder-free conditions using defined media [32]
• Deliver CRISPR/Cas9 components as plasmid DNA, ribonucleoprotein complexes, or mRNA using electroporation or lipofection
• For knock-in approaches, include donor DNA template with homology arms (800-1000 bp) flanking the desired modification
• Enrich transfected cells using antibiotic selection (e.g., puromycin) or fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) for co-expressed markers

Screening and Validation:

• Extract genomic DNA from pools or individual clones using alkaline lysis or column-based methods [32]
• Screen for modifications by PCR followed by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis, T7 endonuclease I assay, or high-resolution melt analysis
• Confirm precise edits by Sanger sequencing of cloned PCR products or next-generation sequencing amplicons
• Establish clonal lines from single cells and validate karyotypic integrity

Cre-LoxP-Mediated SOX Network Manipulation

The following protocol describes generation of conditional SOX mouse models using Cre-LoxP technology:

Targeting Vector Construction:

• Design targeting vectors with loxP sites flanking critical exons of the SOX gene of interest (e.g., exon 2 of SOX9)
• Include positive selection markers (e.g., neomycin resistance) between the loxP sites and homology arms (1-3 kb) [36]
• Incorporate negative selection markers (e.g., thymidine kinase) outside the homology arms to enrich for homologous recombination

ES Cell Targeting and Screening:

• Electroporate targeting vectors into mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells
• Select with appropriate antibiotics (e.g., G418) for 7-10 days [36]
• Pick individual colonies and expand for genomic DNA extraction
• Screen targeted clones by PCR and Southern blot analysis using external probes
• Validate loxP site integrity by sequencing across the insertion sites

Mouse Generation and Crosses:

• Inject targeted ES cells into blastocysts and implant into pseudopregnant females
• Generate chimeric mice and breed to transmit the floxed allele through the germline
• Cross floxed mice with tissue-specific Cre drivers (e.g., CD4-Cre for T cells, LysM-Cre for myeloid cells) to achieve cell-type specific SOX gene deletion
• For temporal control, utilize inducible Cre systems (e.g., Cre-ER^T2) with tamoxifen administration

Validation of Recombination:

• Confirm SOX gene deletion by PCR across the loxP sites
• Verify loss of SOX protein expression by immunohistochemistry or Western blot
• Assess functional consequences in immune cell populations by flow cytometry, cytokine production, and functional assays

Signaling Pathways and Experimental Workflows

CRISPR/Cas9 Workflow for SOX Gene Editing

Figure 1: CRISPR/Cas9 workflow for SOX gene editing. The process begins with target identification and proceeds through sgRNA design, component delivery, screening, clonal isolation, and validation before phenotypic characterization.

SOX9 Immune Regulation Network

Figure 2: SOX9 immune regulation network. SOX9 influences multiple aspects of immune cell function and contributes to immune evasion mechanisms in cancer, with significant implications for biomarker development and therapeutic targeting.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for SOX Network Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Key Considerations
CRISPR/Cas9 Plasmids	pX330 (Addgene #42230), pX333-P-Cre [34]	Co-expression of Cas9, sgRNA, and Cre recombinase	Enable combined CRISPR/Cas9 and Cre-LoxP approaches
Cre Recombinase Tools	Adenoviral-Cre, Cre-ERT2	Spatial and temporal control of recombination	Inducible systems provide temporal control
Targeting Vectors	pPGKneo-F2F, pPGKhyg-F2F [36]	Homology-directed repair templates	1-kb homology arms sufficient for efficient targeting
SOX9 Antibodies	Anti-SOX9 (HPA #001350)	Immunodetection in tissues and cells	Validate specificity with knockout controls
Cell Lines	HEK293T, Mouse ESCs, Patient-derived melanoma cultures [37]	In vitro modeling of SOX network function	Consider species-specific differences in SOX function
Animal Models	KrasLSL-G12D/+; Rosa26LSL-Cas9-EGFP/+ (KC) [34]	In vivo validation of SOX immune functions	Strain background influences immune phenotypes

CRISPR/Cas9 and Cre-LoxP technologies offer complementary approaches for functional validation of SOX networks in immune regulation. CRISPR/Cas9 provides unparalleled flexibility for rapid gene editing and high-throughput screening, while Cre-LoxP enables precise spatiotemporal control for in vivo studies of SOX function in specific immune cell populations. The choice between systems depends on research goals: CRISPR/Cas9 excels for initial functional screening and creating isogenic models, while Cre-LoxP remains invaluable for sophisticated in vivo validation and modeling complex immune interactions.

Integrated approaches that combine both technologies, such as CRISPR/Cas9-mediated loxP insertion followed by Cre recombination, offer powerful strategies for studying SOX network dynamics in immune regulation. As research continues to unravel the complex roles of SOX transcription factors in immunity, these gene editing technologies will remain essential tools for mechanistic studies and therapeutic development.

Single-Cell RNA Sequencing and Spatial Transcriptomics for SOX Expression Mapping

The SRY-related HMG box (SOX) family of transcription factors plays pivotal roles in development, cell fate determination, and disease pathogenesis. Among these, SOX9 has emerged as a particularly significant regulator with complex, context-dependent functions in immune regulation. Recent advances in single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) and spatial transcriptomics (ST) have revolutionized our ability to map the expression patterns of SOX family members within their native tissue contexts, revealing unprecedented details about their roles in cellular differentiation, tissue homeostasis, and disease processes [3] [38]. These technologies enable researchers to dissect the cellular heterogeneity and spatial organization of tissues at single-cell resolution, providing critical insights into how SOX proteins, particularly SOX9, coordinate immune responses within specialized tissue microenvironments [39] [40].

SOX9 exhibits a dualistic "janus-faced" nature in immune regulation, functioning paradoxically in different biological contexts. On one hand, it promotes tumor immune escape by impairing immune cell function, making it a potential therapeutic target in cancer. On the other hand, increased SOX9 levels help maintain macrophage function, contributing to cartilage formation, tissue regeneration, and repair [3]. This complex relationship between SOX9 and immune components positions it as a promising therapeutic candidate for cancer and immune-related diseases, necessitating precise mapping techniques to fully understand its diverse functions [3].

Single-Cell RNA Sequencing (scRNA-seq)

scRNA-seq technology enables comprehensive analysis of transcriptomes at the single-cell level, revealing cellular heterogeneity, identifying rare cell populations, and mapping developmental trajectories through pseudotime analysis [40] [41]. The fundamental workflow begins with tissue dissociation into single-cell suspensions, followed by cell isolation using various methods such as fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS), microfluidic platforms, or microdroplet technologies [40]. After cell lysis, reverse transcription converts RNA into cDNA, which is amplified and prepared for sequencing with the incorporation of unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) to control for amplification bias [40].

The two primary scRNA-seq approaches include:

• Full-length transcript methods (e.g., Smart-seq2): Offer higher sensitivity and coverage of transcript isoforms
• Tag-based methods (e.g., Drop-seq, 10X Chromium): Enable higher throughput with lower cost [40]

These techniques have been instrumental in identifying novel cell subpopulations and their roles in disease progression, providing insights into SOX expression patterns across diverse cell types [40] [41].

Spatial Transcriptomics (ST)

Spatial transcriptomics bridges the gap between traditional histology and molecular profiling by preserving the spatial context of gene expression within tissues [38]. This technology has undergone rapid evolution, with current methods broadly categorized as:

• Next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based approaches: Utilize spatially barcoded microarray slides to capture poly-adenylated RNA, enabling unbiased whole transcriptome analysis [38]. Key platforms include:

  • Visium (10x Genomics): 55μm diameter spots, 100μm center-center spacing [42] [38]
  • Slide-Seq: 10μm resolution using randomly barcoded beads [38]
  • DBiT-Seq: Employs microfluidics to apply polyT barcodes [38]

• Imaging-based approaches:

  • In situ sequencing (ISS): Directly reads transcript sequences within tissue sections [38]
  • In situ hybridization (ISH): Uses sequential hybridization of imaging probes [38]

Recent methodological refinements have significantly improved data quality from challenging tissues like bone, which requires decalcification that traditionally degraded RNA quality. Optimization using Morse's solution for decalcification, combined with the Visium CytAssist platform, has dramatically enhanced RNA preservation, increasing gene detection from approximately 300 to 3000-5000 genes per spot, comparable to soft tissues [42].

Table 1: Comparison of Major Spatial Transcriptomics Technologies

Technology	Resolution	Gene Throughput	Key Applications	Advantages
Visium (10x Genomics)	55μm diameter	Whole transcriptome (unbiased)	Cancer biology, developmental biology [38]	Standardized workflow, commercial availability
Slide-Seq	10μm	Whole transcriptome (unbiased)	Neuroscience, tissue architecture [38]	Higher resolution than Visium
ISS-based methods (STARmap, etc.)	Subcellular (∼100nm with expansion)	Targeted (up to 10,000 genes)	Brain mapping, cellular organization [38]	Highest resolution, single-molecule detection
DBiT-Seq	10μm	Whole transcriptome (unbiased)	Developing tissues, organogenesis [38]	Combines NGS and microfluidics

Integrated scRNA-seq and ST Analysis Frameworks

The true power of these technologies emerges when they are integrated. Computational frameworks such as Seurat, CARD, Monocle, and CellChat enable the combination of scRNA-seq data with spatial transcriptomics to map cell types onto tissue architecture, reconstruct differentiation trajectories, and analyze cell-cell communication through ligand-receptor interactions [42]. This integrated approach allows researchers to precisely localize critical cell populations, such as periosteum progenitor cells, and identify pivotal transcription factors that regulate their activation and differentiation [42].

SOX9 Expression Mapping in Immune Regulation

SOX9 in Immune Cell Development and Function

scRNA-seq and spatial transcriptomics have revealed cell-type-specific SOX9 expression patterns across immune lineages and tissue contexts. According to the Human Protein Atlas, SOX9 shows enhanced expression in specific epithelial cell types, including epididymal efferent duct absorptive cells, mucous neck cells, lacrimal acinar cells, and breast secretory cells, but is not detected in immune cells under normal conditions [43]. However, despite this low expression in immune cells themselves, SOX9 plays significant regulatory roles in immune processes through its functions in tissue-resident cells that interact with immune components.

In T cell development, SOX9 cooperates with c-Maf to activate Rorc and key Tγδ17 effector genes (Il17a and Blk), modulating the lineage commitment of early thymic progenitors and potentially influencing the balance between αβ T cell and γδ T cell differentiation [3]. Although SOX9 does not play a significant role in normal B cell development, it is overexpressed in certain B-cell lymphomas, such as Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL), where it acts as an oncogene by promoting cell proliferation, inhibiting apoptosis, and contributing to cancer progression [3].

SOX9 in Tissue Microenvironments and Immune Crosstalk

In tissue-specific contexts, SOX9 dysregulation significantly impacts immune cell recruitment and function:

• Bone Fracture Healing: Integrated scRNA-seq and ST analysis of mouse long bone fracture healing revealed that SOX9+ mesenchymal progenitor cells (MPCs) recruit macrophages near the fracture line during early healing stages, establishing a critical regenerative microenvironment. The transformation from MPCs to regenerative MPCs (rMPCs) involves SOX9-mediated transcriptional programs that coordinate inflammatory responses and tissue repair processes [42].

• Primary Sjögren's Syndrome (pSS): scRNA-seq of salivary glands from pSS patients showed significantly decreased SOX9 expression in myoepithelial cells, potentially impairing epithelial regeneration and contributing to disease pathogenesis. This downregulation was associated with aberrant interferon signaling and MHC-II pathway activation in epithelial cells, creating a pro-inflammatory tissue environment [39].

• Cancer Microenvironments: SOX9 is highly expressed in various solid malignancies, where it correlates with altered immune cell infiltration. In colorectal cancer, SOX9 expression negatively correlates with infiltration levels of B cells, resting mast cells, resting T cells, monocytes, plasma cells, and eosinophils, but positively correlates with neutrophils, macrophages, activated mast cells, and naive/activated T cells [3]. Similarly, in prostate cancer, SOX9 overexpression contributes to an "immune desert" microenvironment by decreasing effector immune cells (CD8+CXCR6+ T cells and activated neutrophils) while increasing immunosuppressive cells (Tregs, M2 macrophages) [3].

Table 2: SOX9-Associated Immune Dysregulation Across Tissue Contexts

Tissue Context	SOX9 Expression	Key Immune Findings	Techniques Used
Colorectal Cancer	Overexpressed	Negative correlation with anti-tumor immune cells; positive correlation with pro-tumor immune cells [3]	Bioinformatics analysis of TCGA data
Prostate Cancer	Overexpressed	Promotes "immune desert" microenvironment; decreases effector T cells [3]	scRNA-seq, spatial transcriptomics
Primary Sjögren's Syndrome	Decreased in myoepithelial cells	Impaired epithelial regeneration; aberrant interferon signaling [39]	scRNA-seq (10X Genomics)
Bone Fracture Healing	Expressed in MPCs and rMPCs	Recruits macrophages to fracture site; coordinates early healing [42]	Optimized ST (Visium CytAssist), scRNA-seq
Osteoporosis	Varied in bone cell subtypes	Alters immune-bone cell crosstalk; affects bone remodeling [41]	scRNA-seq, gene regulatory network analysis

SOX9 Interaction with Other SOX Family Members

The SOX family comprises approximately 20 members in mammals, with functional redundancies and antagonisms creating complex regulatory networks [44]. While SOX9 belongs to the SOXE group (including SOX8 and SOX10), other members like SOX30 (SOXH group) demonstrate complementary functions in developmental processes. In testicular development, for example, SRY initiates SOX9 expression, directing bipotential progenitor cells to differentiate into Sertoli cells, which then orchestrate further testis development [44]. Simultaneously, SOX30 emerges as a crucial regulator of spermatogenesis, with Sox30-knockout mice exhibiting specific testicular pathological defects and sterility without spermatozoa [44].

The coordinated expression of different SOX family members creates a sophisticated regulatory hierarchy that controls cell differentiation and tissue development. Spatial transcriptomics has begun to illuminate how these factors occupy specific niches within tissues to maintain tissue architecture and function, with SOX9 often serving as a master regulator in chondrogenesis, neural crest development, and epithelial cell differentiation [45].

Experimental Protocols for SOX Expression Mapping

Optimized Spatial Transcriptomics Protocol for Mineralized Tissues

The following protocol, optimized for bone tissues requiring decalcification, significantly improves RNA quality and spatial mapping resolution [42]:

• Tissue Preparation:

  • Collect fresh femur/tissue samples and fix in 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) overnight at 4°C
  • Decalcify in Morse's solution for 20 hours at room temperature (critical step for RNA preservation)
  • Process for paraffin embedding using standard protocols

• Sectioning and Mounting:

  • Cut 6μm-thick longitudinal sections across the entire tissue region of interest
  • Select central cross-sections for maximal tissue architecture representation
  • Mount sections on superfrost slides and dry at 60°C for three hours

• Spatial Transcriptomics Processing:

  • Deparaffinize slides and perform hematoxylin/eosin (H&E) staining
  • Image using a whole-slide scanner (e.g., Leica DMI8) at 10× resolution
  • Process with Visium CytAssist Spatial Gene Expression for FFPE kits
  • Perform crosslinking, probe hybridization, and tissue removal enzyme treatment
  • Capture released probes using Visium CytAssist instrument
  • Prepare libraries using Visium HD platform (Day 0 samples) or standard Visium (Days 5/15 samples)

• Sequencing and Data Analysis:

  • Sequence libraries on Illumina NovaSeq 6000, targeting ≥100,000 reads per spot with PE150
  • Process alignment using Space Ranger pipeline
  • Perform integrated analysis through Seurat, CARD, and Monocle packages
  • Analyze cellular interactions using CellChat package

Integrated scRNA-seq and ST Analysis Workflow

For comprehensive SOX expression mapping, the following integrated protocol is recommended:

• Parallel Tissue Processing:

  • Divide fresh tissue samples for both scRNA-seq and ST
  • For scRNA-seq: Create single-cell suspensions using appropriate dissociation protocols
  • For ST: Follow tissue preparation protocol above

• scRNA-seq Processing:

  • Load cell suspensions on 10X Chromium platform
  • Prepare libraries using 3' gene expression kit
  • Sequence to depth of ≥50,000 reads per cell

• Data Integration:

  • Combine scRNA-seq and ST datasets using harmony integration in Seurat
  • Perform cell type deconvolution using CARD to map scRNA-seq identities to spatial spots
  • Reconstruct differentiation trajectories using Monocle

• SOX-Specific Analysis:

  • Identify SOX expression patterns across cell types and spatial regions
  • Analyze SOX target genes using SCENIC regulatory network analysis
  • Map ligand-receptor interactions involving SOX-expressing cells

Signaling Pathways and Molecular Networks

SOX9 in Chondrogenesis and Skeletal Development

SOX9 serves as a master transcription factor in chondrocyte differentiation and skeletal development, binding to the 5'-ACAAAG-3' DNA motif present in enhancers and super-enhancers to promote expression of genes critical for chondrogenesis [43]. Key transcriptional targets include cartilage matrix protein-coding genes (COL2A1, COL4A2, COL9A1, COL11A2, and ACAN) as well as SOX5 and SOX6, which cooperate with SOX9 to establish the chondrogenic program [43].

In fracture healing, SOX9+ mesenchymal progenitor cells (MPCs) undergo activation to become regenerative MPCs (rMPCs), initiating a transcriptional cascade that recruits macrophages to the fracture site and coordinates the transition from inflammatory phase to repair phase [42]. This SOX9-directed program is essential for successful bone regeneration, with spatial transcriptomics revealing precise temporal-spatial activation patterns during healing progression.

SOX9 in Immune-Related Pathways

Beyond its developmental roles, SOX9 participates in several immune-relevant pathways:

• RANKL-RANK Pathway: In osteoporosis, scRNA-seq has revealed that SOX9 expression patterns in bone cells influence osteoclast differentiation through modulation of RANKL signaling, with specific immune cell subpopulations (MacOLR1 macrophages, NeutRSAD2 neutrophils, Tem_CCL4 T cells) showing activated osteoclast differentiation pathways [41].

• Interferon Signaling: In Primary Sjögren's Syndrome, decreased SOX9 in myoepithelial cells correlates with upregulated interferon signaling pathways (IFI27, IFI44L, IFITM1, IFI6) and MHC-II antigen presentation (HLA-DQA1, HLA-DQB1, HLA-DRA), creating a pro-inflammatory tissue environment [39].

• Wnt/β-catenin Pathway: SOX9 inhibits β-catenin signaling during chondrocyte differentiation, and this interaction may extend to immune regulation in tissue microenvironments [3] [43].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for SOX Expression Mapping Studies

Reagent/Kit	Manufacturer	Primary Function	Key Applications in SOX Research
Visium Spatial Gene Expression	10x Genomics	Spatial whole transcriptome analysis	Mapping SOX expression in tissue architecture [42] [38]
Chromium Single Cell 3' Kit	10x Genomics	scRNA-seq library preparation	Identifying SOX-expressing cell subpopulations [39] [41]
Morse's Solution	Various	Tissue decalcification	RNA preservation in bone samples for ST [42]
Anti-SOX9 Antibodies	Multiple	Protein detection and validation	IHC/IF confirmation of SOX9 protein expression [3] [43]
Seurat R Package	Satija Lab	scRNA-seq data analysis	Identifying SOX-related cell clusters and markers [42] [39]
CARD Package	Harvard	Spatial deconvolution	Mapping scRNA-seq cell types to spatial locations [42]
Monocle Package	Trapnell Lab	Trajectory analysis	Reconstructing SOX-related differentiation paths [42] [41]
CellChat R Package	Harvard	Cell-cell communication	Analyzing SOX9-mediated cellular crosstalk [42]
N,N,N',N'-Tetraethyl-1,4-diaminobut-2-ene	N,N,N',N'-Tetraethyl-1,4-diaminobut-2-ene, CAS:20412-52-6, MF:C12H26N2, MW:198.35 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Pentachlorophenyl methyl sulfoxide	Pentachlorophenyl methyl sulfoxide, CAS:70215-07-5, MF:C7H3Cl5OS, MW:312.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The integration of single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics has fundamentally advanced our understanding of SOX family transcription factors, particularly SOX9, in immune regulation and tissue homeostasis. These technologies have revealed the remarkable context-dependent duality of SOX9 function, its cell-type-specific expression patterns, and its critical roles at the interface of development and immunity. The optimized protocols and analytical frameworks presented here provide researchers with powerful tools to dissect SOX expression networks with unprecedented resolution.

Future directions in this field will likely focus on multi-omic integration (combining transcriptomics with epigenomics and proteomics), dynamic temporal mapping of SOX expression during disease progression and treatment, and the development of computational models to predict SOX network perturbations. These advances will further illuminate the complex functions of SOX family proteins in health and disease, accelerating the development of targeted therapeutic interventions for cancer, autoimmune disorders, and regenerative medicine applications.

The SRY-Box Transcription Factor 9 (SOX9) is a pivotal transcription factor within the SOX family that governs diverse biological processes, from embryonic development and chondrogenesis to immune regulation and cancer progression [3] [46]. As a high-mobility group (HMG) box-containing protein, SOX9 recognizes and binds to the specific DNA sequence CCTTGAG, thereby regulating the expression of numerous target genes [47] [46]. Recent research has illuminated SOX9's complex, "double-edged sword" role in immunology, where it exhibits context-dependent functions across various immune cell types [3]. On one hand, SOX9 promotes tumor immune escape by impairing immune cell function, making it a potential therapeutic target in cancer. Conversely, it helps maintain macrophage function and contributes to cartilage formation, tissue regeneration, and repair [3]. This dual nature, coupled with its frequent overexpression in various malignancies and role in therapy resistance, has positioned SOX9 as an emerging therapeutic target, particularly for small molecule inhibitors that disrupt its DNA binding and protein interactions [3] [48].

Structural Basis for SOX9 Targeting

The human SOX9 protein contains several functionally critical domains that represent attractive targeting sites for small molecule intervention. As illustrated in Figure 1, these domains are organized from N- to C-terminus as follows: a dimerization domain (DIM), the HMG box domain (responsible for DNA binding), a central transcriptional activation domain (TAM), a proline/glutamine/alanine (PQA)-rich domain, and a C-terminal transcriptional activation domain (TAC) [3]. The HMG domain serves dual roles: it directs nuclear localization via embedded nuclear localization and export signals, and facilitates specific DNA binding [3]. The C-terminal TAC domain interacts with diverse cofactors, such as Tip60, to enhance SOX9's transcriptional activity, while the TAM functions synergistically with TAC to augment transcriptional potential [3]. Understanding this modular architecture is fundamental to developing targeted inhibition strategies.

SOX9 in Immune Regulation and Cancer

SOX9's Dual Role in Immunity

SOX9 plays a significant role in immune cell development and function, participating in the differentiation and regulation of diverse immune lineages. In T cell development, SOX9 cooperates with c-Maf to activate Rorc and key Tγδ17 effector genes (Il17a and Blk), thereby modulating the lineage commitment of early thymic progenitors and potentially influencing the balance between αβ T cell and γδ T cell differentiation [3]. Within the B cell lineage, while SOX9 does not play a significant role in normal B cell development, it is overexpressed in certain types of B-cell lymphomas, such as Diffused Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL), where it acts as an oncogene by promoting cell proliferation, inhibiting apoptosis, and contributing to cancer progression [3].

Bioinformatics analyses indicate a strong association between SOX9 expression and immune cell infiltration within tissues. In colorectal cancer, SOX9 expression negatively correlates with infiltration levels of B cells, resting mast cells, resting T cells, monocytes, plasma cells, and eosinophils, but positively correlates with neutrophils, macrophages, activated mast cells, and naive/activated T cells [3]. Similarly, SOX9 overexpression negatively correlates with genes associated with the function of CD8+ T cells, NK cells, and M1 macrophages, while showing a positive correlation with memory CD4+ T cells [3]. In prostate cancer, this imbalance ultimately creates an "immune desert" microenvironment that promotes tumor immune escape [3].

SOX9 in Cancer Progression and Therapy Resistance

SOX9 is highly expressed in various solid malignancies, including liver cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, and gastric cancer, where its expression levels positively correlate with tumor occurrence and progression [3] [47]. It is widely regarded as an oncogene significantly implicated in tumor chemoresistance and malignant potential [3]. The transcription factor drives chemoresistance by reprogramming the transcriptional program of naive cancer cells into stem-like cancer cells [10]. In high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), SOX9 is sufficient to induce a stem-like transcriptional state and significant resistance to platinum treatment [10]. Treatment of HGSOC cell lines with carboplatin results in acute and robust SOX9 induction at both RNA and protein levels within 72 hours, while SOX9 ablation significantly increases sensitivity to carboplatin treatment [10]. Similarly, in ovarian cancer, elevated SOX9 expression contributes to PARP inhibitor (PARPi) resistance by enhancing DNA damage repair processes [49].

Small Molecule Inhibitors Targeting SOX9

Mechanism of Action

SOX9 inhibitors function through several distinct mechanisms to interfere with the transcriptional activity of the SOX9 protein, as systematically compared in Table 1.

Table 1: Mechanisms of Action for SOX9-Targeting Compounds

Compound/Approach	Primary Mechanism	Experimental Evidence	Cellular Outcome
JQ1 (BET inhibitor)	Dramatically downregulates SOX9 through transcription, BRD4-SOX9 protein-protein interaction, and protein stability [50]	Histone acetylation-related screening in human cancer cell lines [50]	Anti-tumorigenic effects upon SOX9 loss [50]
AZ1 (USP28 inhibitor)	Promotes ubiquitination-mediated degradation of SOX9 by inhibiting USP28-SOX9 interaction [49]	Co-immunoprecipitation, ubiquitination assays in ovarian cancer cells [49]	Increased PARP inhibitor sensitivity, impaired DNA damage repair [49]
RNA interference (siRNA/shRNA)	Reduces SOX9 expression at mRNA level [51]	Gene expression analysis, functional assays in multiple cancer models [51]	Decreased tumor cell proliferation, induced apoptosis, reduced metastatic potential [51]
CRISPR/Cas9	Knocks out or edits SOX9 gene [51]	Genetic validation, phenotypic characterization [10] [51]	Permanent SOX9 function inhibition, increased chemotherapy sensitivity [10]

Key Signaling Pathways and Interaction Networks

SOX9 functions within a complex network of protein interactions and signaling pathways that regulate its stability, transcriptional activity, and downstream effects. As illustrated in Figure 2, these interactions provide multiple nodes for therapeutic intervention.

The SOX9 protein interaction network reveals key regulatory nodes. USP28 stabilizes SOX9 by inhibiting its ubiquitination and subsequent degradation, which is mediated by the E3 ubiquitin ligase FBXW7 [49]. BRD4 regulates SOX9 through transcription, protein-protein interaction, and protein stability mechanisms [50]. EP300 (p300) serves as a transcriptional co-activator that regulates chondrocyte-specific gene expression via association with SOX9 [46]. These interactions ultimately influence critical cellular processes including DNA damage repair, stemness maintenance, and immune regulation [3] [49].

Experimental Approaches for Evaluating SOX9 Inhibitors

Protocol for Assessing SOX9-DNA Binding Interference

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of small molecules in disrupting SOX9-DNA binding interactions.

Materials and Reagents:

• Purified SOX9 HMG box domain protein
• Biotin-labeled DNA probe containing CCTTGAG sequence
• Small molecule inhibitors (e.g., JQ1, AZ1)
• Electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) kit
• Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) reagents
• SOX9 antibodies for immunoprecipitation

Methodology:

• EMSA Setup: Incubate purified SOX9 protein with biotin-labeled DNA probe in binding buffer with varying concentrations of small molecule inhibitors (0.1-100 µM) for 30 minutes at room temperature.
• Electrophoresis: Resolve protein-DNA complexes on a non-denaturing polyacrylamide gel and transfer to a nylon membrane.
• Detection: Visualize using chemiluminescence with streptavidin-HRP for biotin detection.
• ChIP Validation: Treat SOX9-expressing cells with inhibitors for 24 hours, cross-link DNA-protein complexes, immunoprecipitate with SOX9 antibody, and quantify bound DNA by qPCR at known SOX9 target genes.
• Data Analysis: Calculate IC50 values for displacement efficiency and perform statistical analysis.

Protocol for Protein-Protein Interaction Disruption Assay

Objective: To determine the ability of small molecules to disrupt critical SOX9-protein interactions.

Materials and Reagents:

• Plasmids encoding SOX9 and interaction partners (USP28, BRD4, FBXW7)
• HEK293T or relevant cancer cell lines
• Co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP) buffer and reagents
• Small molecule inhibitors
• Antibodies for SOX9, USP28, BRD4, FBXW7

Methodology:

• Cell Transfection: Co-transfect HEK293T cells with SOX9 and interaction partner plasmids for 24 hours.
• Inhibitor Treatment: Treat cells with small molecule inhibitors at determined concentrations for 12-24 hours.
• Protein Extraction: Lyse cells in Co-IP buffer with protease inhibitors.
• Immunoprecipitation: Incubate cell lysates with SOX9 antibody overnight at 4°C, then with protein A/G beads for 2 hours.
• Western Blot Analysis: Resolve immunoprecipitates by SDS-PAGE, transfer to PVDF membrane, and probe with respective antibodies to detect interaction partners.
• Quantification: Normalize band intensities to input controls and calculate percentage inhibition of interactions.

Protocol for Functional Assessment in Cancer Models

Objective: To evaluate the functional consequences of SOX9 inhibition in relevant disease models.

Materials and Reagents:

• SOX9-high cancer cell lines (ovarian SKOV3, breast MCF-7, etc.)
• Chemotherapeutic agents (carboplatin, olaparib)
• Colony formation assay reagents
• Apoptosis detection kit (Annexin V/PI)
• Sphere formation media

Methodology:

• Viability Assays: Treat cells with SOX9 inhibitors alone or in combination with chemotherapeutics for 72 hours. Assess viability using MTT or CellTiter-Glo assays.
• Clonogenic Survival: Seed cells at low density, treat with inhibitors for 24 hours, then culture in drug-free media for 10-14 days. Fix, stain with crystal violet, and count colonies.
• Apoptosis Analysis: Treat cells for 48 hours, harvest, stain with Annexin V/PI, and analyze by flow cytometry.
• Stemness Assessment: Culture cells in ultra-low attachment plates with sphere-forming media containing inhibitors for 7-10 days. Count and measure tumor spheres.
• DNA Damage Repair: Treat cells with inhibitors followed by DNA-damaging agents. Monitor DNA repair foci by γH2AX immunofluorescence and RAD51 staining.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for SOX9-Targeting Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Experimental Notes
Small Molecule Inhibitors	JQ1 (BET inhibitor), AZ1 (USP28 inhibitor)	Disrupt SOX9 transcription, stability, and protein interactions [50] [49]	JQ1: Use at 100-500 nM; AZ1: Effective at 1-10 µM; dissolve in DMSO [50] [49]
Genetic Tools	SOX9-targeting sgRNA (CRISPR), SOX9 siRNA/shRNA	Knockout or knock down SOX9 expression [10] [51]	CRISPR for permanent deletion; siRNA for transient knockdown; validate with Western blot [10]
Antibodies	Anti-SOX9, Anti-USP28, Anti-BRD4, Anti-FBXW7, Anti-γH2AX	Detection, quantification, and localization in Western blot, IF, IHC, Co-IP [49]	ChIP-grade SOX9 antibody essential for binding studies; phospho-specific antibodies for activation status [49]
Cell Lines	SKOV3 (ovarian), MCF-7 (breast), patient-derived organoids	Disease modeling, drug screening, mechanism studies [10] [49]	Include both sensitive and resistant variants; monitor SOX9 expression levels during culture [10]
Assay Kits	EMSA kit, ChIP kit, Apoptosis detection, Sphere formation media	Functional assessment of binding, transcription, cell death, and stemness [49]	Optimize cell density for sphere formation; include appropriate controls for ChIP [10]
Succisulfone	Succisulfone, CAS:5934-14-5, MF:C16H16N2O5S, MW:348.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
5,6-Methylenedioxy-2-methylaminoindan	5,6-Methylenedioxy-2-methylaminoindan|CAS 132741-82-3	High-purity 5,6-Methylenedioxy-2-methylaminoindan (MDMAI) for neuroscientific research. A selective serotonergic agent for studying entactogen mechanisms. For Research Use Only. Not for human consumption.	Bench Chemicals

Comparative Analysis of SOX9-Targeting Strategies

Therapeutic Efficacy Across Cancer Models

The comparative efficacy of SOX9-targeting approaches varies significantly across experimental models, as summarized in Table 3. This structured comparison highlights context-dependent responses and optimal application scenarios for each strategy.

Table 3: Comparative Efficacy of SOX9-Targeting Strategies in Preclinical Models

Therapeutic Approach	Cancer Model	Key Findings	Combination Potential	Limitations
JQ1 (BRD4 inhibitor)	Multiple human cancer cell lines [50]	Dramatic SOX9 downregulation through multiple mechanisms; anti-tumorigenic effects upon SOX9 loss [50]	High - with conventional chemotherapeutics; broader epigenetic impact [50]	Non-specific - targets multiple bromodomain proteins; potential off-target effects [50]
USP28 inhibition (AZ1)	Ovarian cancer models (SKOV3, UWB1.289) [49]	Reduces SOX9 protein stability; sensitizes to PARP inhibitors; impairs DNA damage repair [49]	Strong - particularly with PARP inhibitors in HR-proficient cancers [49]	Limited efficacy as monotherapy; requires combination approaches [49]
SOX9 CRISPR knockout	HGSOC cell lines (OVCAR4, Kuramochi) [10]	Significant increase in platinum sensitivity; reduced colony formation [10]	N/A (genetic approach)	Translation challenge - requires delivery system for in vivo application [10]
SOX9 siRNA/shRNA	Various solid tumors (breast, prostate, colorectal) [51]	Decreased proliferation, induced apoptosis, reduced metastatic potential [51]	Moderate - with targeted therapies and chemotherapy [51]	Transient effect; requires efficient delivery system [51]

Targeting SOX9-DNA binding and protein interactions represents a promising therapeutic strategy, particularly in cancers characterized by SOX9 overexpression and therapy resistance. The development of small molecule inhibitors that specifically disrupt SOX9's transcriptional network offers significant potential for overcoming chemoresistance and immune evasion in multiple cancer types. Current evidence supports combination approaches, such as USP28 inhibitors with PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer or BRD4 inhibitors with conventional chemotherapy, as particularly effective strategies [50] [49]. Future efforts should focus on developing more specific direct SOX9-DNA binding inhibitors, optimizing combination sequences and timing, and identifying predictive biomarkers for patient stratification. As our understanding of SOX9's complex role in immunity and cancer deepens, so too will our ability to precisely target this pivotal transcription factor for therapeutic benefit.

RNAi and CRISPR-Based SOX9 Knockdown Strategies in Preclinical Models

The SRY-related HMG-box 9 (SOX9) transcription factor is a critical developmental regulator that has emerged as a significant player in cancer biology, stem cell maintenance, and immune regulation. As a member of the SOX family transcription factors, SOX9 contains a highly conserved high-mobility group (HMG) box domain that facilitates DNA binding and transcriptional regulation [3]. Recent research has illuminated its complex, dual role in immunology – functioning as a "double-edged sword" in the tumor microenvironment [3]. On one hand, SOX9 promotes tumor immune escape by impairing immune cell function; on the other hand, it helps maintain macrophage function and contributes to tissue regeneration and repair [3]. This immunological duality, coupled with its established roles in chemoresistance and cancer stemness [10] [47] [52], positions SOX9 as a compelling therapeutic target. Consequently, developing effective gene silencing strategies against SOX9 has become a priority in preclinical research, with RNA interference (RNAi) and CRISPR-Cas9 emerging as the two predominant technological approaches.

Fundamental Mechanisms: RNAi versus CRISPR-Cas9

RNA Interference (RNAi) – Transcriptional Knockdown

The RNAi mechanism utilizes endogenous cellular machinery to silence gene expression at the mRNA level. Double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) molecules, introduced as small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) or expressed as short hairpin RNAs (shRNAs), are processed by the endonuclease Dicer into 21-23 nucleotide fragments [53]. These fragments associate with the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC), where the antisense strand guides the complex to complementary mRNA sequences. The RISC component Argonaute then cleaves the target mRNA, preventing translation and effectively reducing protein levels without altering the DNA sequence [53]. This approach generates a temporary, reversible knockdown effect, allowing investigation of partial gene suppression phenotypes that might mimic therapeutic inhibition more closely than complete knockout.

CRISPR-Cas9 – Genomic Knockout

The CRISPR-Cas9 system operates at the DNA level to create permanent genetic alterations. This technology employs a guide RNA (gRNA) that directs the Cas9 nuclease to a specific genomic locus complementary to the gRNA sequence [53]. Upon binding, Cas9 creates a double-strand break (DSB) in the DNA, which the cell typically repairs through error-prone non-homologous end joining (NHEJ). This repair process often results in small insertions or deletions (indels) that disrupt the reading frame, leading to premature stop codons and complete protein ablation [53]. Unlike RNAi, CRISPR-Cas9 effects are permanent and can achieve complete gene knockout, making it particularly valuable for studying essential genes and modeling loss-of-function mutations.

Table 1: Fundamental Mechanism Comparison Between RNAi and CRISPR-Cas9

Feature	RNAi	CRISPR-Cas9
Molecular Target	mRNA	DNA
Effect Type	Knockdown (reduction)	Knockout (elimination)
Mechanism	mRNA degradation/translational inhibition	DNA cleavage with indel mutations
Reversibility	Reversible	Permanent
Cellular Machinery	Endogenous RISC and Dicer	Endogenous DNA repair pathways
Duration of Effect	Transient (days to weeks)	Stable (permanent)
Primary Application	Studying partial loss-of-function, essential genes	Modeling complete gene ablation, genetic disorders

Visualizing Core Mechanisms and Experimental Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the fundamental mechanisms and standard experimental workflows for implementing RNAi and CRISPR-Cas9 technologies in SOX9 perturbation studies.

Figure 1: RNAi Mechanism for Gene Knockdown - This diagram illustrates the sequential process of RNA interference, from introducing double-stranded RNA molecules to eventual protein level reduction.

Figure 2: CRISPR-Cas9 Mechanism for Gene Knockout - This diagram outlines the CRISPR-Cas9 process from guide RNA design to permanent gene disruption through non-homologous end joining.

Performance Comparison in Preclinical Models

Efficiency and Specificity Profiles

Direct comparative studies between RNAi and CRISPR-Cas9 technologies have revealed significant differences in their performance characteristics. A systematic comparison in K562 chronic myelogenous leukemia cells demonstrated that both platforms effectively identify essential genes, with similar precision (AUC > 0.90) at low false positive rates [54]. However, CRISPR-Cas9 screens identified approximately 4,500 genes with growth phenotypes compared to ~3,100 genes identified in parallel shRNA screens, with only ~1,200 genes overlapping between both technologies [54]. This discrepancy suggests that each method may uncover distinct biological processes and gene functions, highlighting the value of complementary approaches.

A critical advantage of CRISPR-Cas9 lies in its superior specificity. RNAi is plagued by significant off-target effects resulting from both sequence-independent activation of interferon pathways and sequence-dependent partial complementarity to non-target mRNAs [53]. While optimized siRNA design and chemical modifications have reduced these issues, CRISPR-Cas9 with properly designed guides demonstrates markedly fewer off-target effects [53]. The Cas9 nuclease creates defined, precise breaks at intended genomic locations, whereas RNAi can inadvertently regulate multiple transcripts with similar sequences.

Table 2: Experimental Performance Comparison of RNAi and CRISPR-Cas9

Performance Metric	RNAi	CRISPR-Cas9	Experimental Evidence
Knockdown/Knockout Efficiency	Variable (30-90% protein reduction)	High (near-complete knockout achievable)	[54] [53]
Off-Target Effects	High (sequence-dependent and independent)	Lower (guide-dependent)	[53]
Screen Performance	~3,100 essential genes identified	~4,500 essential genes identified	[54]
Gene Deletion Efficiency	Not applicable	17.7-55.9% (with optimized sgRNAs)	[55]
Phenotypic Concordance	60% of gold standard essentials at 1% FPR	>60% of gold standard essentials at 1% FPR	[54]

SOX9-Specific Perturbation Studies

In SOX9-focused research, both technologies have demonstrated utility across different disease models. In high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), CRISPR-Cas9-mediated SOX9 knockout significantly increased sensitivity to carboplatin treatment, establishing SOX9 as a critical mediator of chemoresistance [10]. Similarly, in glioblastoma models, USP18 was found to stabilize SOX9 protein levels, and shRNA-mediated USP18 knockdown consequently reduced SOX9 expression and diminished stemness characteristics [52]. These complementary findings highlight how both technologies contribute to understanding SOX9 regulation and function.

Notably, the context-dependent effects of SOX9 perturbation may influence technology selection. In breast cancer, SOX9 exhibits both oncogenic and tumor-suppressive functions depending on cellular context [47]. In such scenarios, RNAi-mediated partial knockdown may better model subtle regulatory relationships, while CRISPR-Cas9 is preferable for definitive loss-of-function studies.

Experimental Protocols for SOX9 Targeting

RNAi Workflow for SOX9 Knockdown

1. siRNA/shRNA Design: Design multiple SOX9-specific sequences targeting different regions of the SOX9 transcript (NM_000346.4). Validate specificity using BLAST against the human transcriptome to minimize off-target effects. Include negative control scrambles with the same nucleotide composition but no significant sequence similarity to any known genes.

2. Delivery System Selection: For transient knockdown, use lipid-based transfection of synthetic siRNAs. For stable knockdown, employ lentiviral or retroviral delivery of shRNA constructs under U6 or H1 promoters. Viral transduction typically achieves higher efficiency, particularly in difficult-to-transfect primary cells.

3. Efficiency Validation: Assess knockdown efficiency 48-72 hours post-transfection (siRNA) or after antibiotic selection (shRNA). Quantify SOX9 mRNA reduction via qRT-PCR using validated primers, and measure protein depletion by western blotting or immunofluorescence using SOX9-specific antibodies. Successful experiments typically achieve >70% reduction at mRNA level.

4. Functional Assays: Conduct phenotype-specific assays based on research questions. For cancer models, evaluate proliferation (MTT, colony formation), invasion (Transwell), chemosensitivity (IC50 determination), and stemness (sphere formation). In immune regulation studies, assess cytokine production, immune cell infiltration, or surface marker expression.

CRISPR-Cas9 Workflow for SOX9 Knockout

1. gRNA Design and Optimization: Design 3-5 gRNAs targeting early exons of SOX9 to maximize frameshift probability. Utilize optimized sgRNA structures with extended duplex lengths (~5 bp) and T→C or T→G mutations at position 4 of the polyT tract, which significantly improve knockout efficiency [55]. Online tools like CRISPick or CHOPCHOP can facilitate target selection.

2. Delivery Format Selection: Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes comprising purified Cas9 protein and synthetic gRNA provide the highest editing efficiency and reduced off-target effects [53]. Alternatively, plasmid or viral vector systems enable stable expression but may exhibit lower efficiency.

3. Validation of Editing: Extract genomic DNA 72-96 hours post-delivery and survey target sites using T7E1 assay or TIDE analysis to quantify indel frequency. Isolate single-cell clones and sequence validated knockout lines. Confirm SOX9 ablation at protein level via western blotting.

4. Phenotypic Characterization: Similar to RNAi, conduct disease-relevant functional assays. Given the permanent nature of CRISPR editing, longitudinal studies investigating chronic SOX9 loss are feasible. In immune microenvironment studies, employ co-culture systems with immune cells or utilize syngeneic animal models.

Figure 3: Generalized Experimental Workflow for SOX9 Targeting - This unified workflow outlines the key steps for implementing both RNAi and CRISPR-Cas9 approaches, from initial design to final phenotypic analysis.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Reagents for SOX9 Perturbation Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function	Considerations
RNAi Reagents	SOX9-specific siRNAs/shRNAs; Non-targeting controls	Target mRNA degradation	Multiple sequences recommended; chemical modifications enhance stability
CRISPR Components	Cas9 nuclease (WT or HiFi); SOX9-targeting gRNAs; RNP complexes	Target DNA cleavage	Optimized sgRNA structure enhances efficiency [55]
Delivery Vehicles	Lipid nanoparticles; Lentiviral particles; Electroporation systems	Introduce silencing components	Viral delivery provides higher efficiency in difficult cells
Validation Tools	SOX9 antibodies; qPCR primers; T7E1 assay; Sequencing primers	Confirm targeting efficiency	Multiple validation methods recommended
Cell Culture Models	Cancer cell lines; Primary cells; Patient-derived organoids	Experimental systems	Choose models with endogenous SOX9 expression
Phenotypic Assays Sphere formation kits; Invasion chambers; Viability assays		Functional assessment	Tailor to biological context of SOX9
(1s)-Cyclopent-2-ene-1-carboxylic acid	(1S)-Cyclopent-2-ene-1-carboxylic Acid	High-purity (1S)-Cyclopent-2-ene-1-carboxylic acid, also known as Aleprolic acid. A chiral building block for organic synthesis. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.	Bench Chemicals
2-Ethyl-5,5-dimethyl-1,3-dioxane	2-Ethyl-5,5-dimethyl-1,3-dioxane|CAS 768-58-1	2-Ethyl-5,5-dimethyl-1,3-dioxane (C8H16O2) is a high-purity research compound. This product is for research use only (RUO) and is not intended for personal use.	Bench Chemicals

Application in SOX9-Immune Axis Research

The selection between RNAi and CRISPR-Cas9 becomes particularly significant when investigating SOX9's role in immune regulation. SOX9 influences multiple immune processes, including T cell development through activation of Rorc and Tγδ17 effector genes, and modulation of tumor immune cell infiltration [3]. Bioinformatic analyses reveal that SOX9 expression negatively correlates with infiltration of B cells, resting mast cells, and monocytes, while positively correlating with neutrophils, macrophages, and activated T cells in colorectal cancer [3].

When studying these complex immune interactions, CRISPR-Cas9 excels in creating definitive models for investigating how complete SOX9 loss affects immune cell recruitment, polarization, and function within the tumor microenvironment. The permanent knockout enables long-term co-culture studies and in vivo modeling without concerns about transient effect decay.

Conversely, RNAi offers advantages when modeling the graded effects of SOX9 reduction, which may better mimic partial therapeutic inhibition. This approach is valuable for dose-response studies investigating threshold effects in immune signaling, or when studying SOX9 in primary immune cells where complete knockout might be lethal.

In practice, many research programs employ both technologies sequentially: using CRISPR-Cas9 for initial target validation and definitive phenotyping, followed by RNAi for more nuanced studies of partial suppression and therapeutic modeling.

The choice between RNAi and CRISPR-Cas9 for SOX9 perturbation depends on multiple factors, including research objectives, experimental model, and desired outcome. The following strategic guidelines support appropriate technology selection:

• Opt for CRISPR-Cas9 when complete, permanent SOX9 ablation is required, particularly for in vivo studies, essential gene investigations, or when creating stable cell lines. Its superior specificity and definitive knockout profile make it ideal for establishing SOX9's non-redundant functions.

• Select RNAi for partial knockdown studies, when investigating essential genes where complete knockout would be lethal, for transient perturbation experiments, or when modeling therapeutic inhibition that typically reduces rather than eliminates target expression.

• Employ both technologies complementarily to leverage their respective strengths – using CRISPR-Cas9 for initial target validation and RNAi for dose-response and mechanistic studies. This combined approach provides the most comprehensive understanding of SOX9 function.

For SOX9-specific applications, consider that its role as a pioneer transcription factor with broad epigenetic influence [56] may make complete knockout via CRISPR-Cas9 particularly informative for understanding its master regulatory functions. However, in immune regulation studies where subtle expression changes significantly impact cell fate decisions, RNAi-mediated knockdown may better model physiological regulation.

As both technologies continue to evolve, with improvements in RNAi specificity and CRISPR precision editing, their application in dissecting SOX9 biology will further illuminate its complex roles in immunity, cancer, and development, ultimately accelerating therapeutic targeting of this multifaceted transcription factor.

Cordycepin and Other Natural Compounds as SOX9 Expression Modulators

The transcription factor SOX9 plays a complex, dual role in both development and disease, functioning as a critical regulator in embryogenesis, chondrogenesis, and stem cell maintenance, while also exhibiting contradictory roles in cancer progression and immune regulation. This review comprehensively compares the efficacy and mechanisms of natural compounds, with particular focus on cordycepin, in modulating SOX9 expression and activity. We present experimental data demonstrating cordycepin's dose-dependent suppression of SOX9 in various cancer models, alongside its potential interactions with other SOX family members in immune modulation. Structured tables summarize quantitative findings across studies, while detailed methodologies provide reproducible protocols for evaluating SOX9 modulation. Pathway diagrams visualize the complex regulatory networks involving SOX9, and a dedicated research toolkit section catalogues essential reagents for investigating SOX9 function. This analysis aims to provide researchers and drug development professionals with a comprehensive resource for understanding SOX9 modulation by natural compounds within the broader context of SOX family biology and immune regulation.

The SOX (SRY-related HMG-box) family of transcription factors comprises evolutionarily conserved proteins that play crucial roles in development, cell fate determination, and tissue homeostasis. Among these, SOX9 has emerged as a particularly multifaceted regulator with significant implications in both physiological and pathological processes. SOX9 contains several functional domains organized from N- to C-terminus: a dimerization domain (DIM), the HMG box domain responsible for DNA binding, two transcriptional activation domains (TAM and TAC), and a proline/glutamine/alanine (PQA)-rich domain [3]. This structural configuration enables SOX9 to function as a master transcriptional regulator across diverse biological contexts.

Recent evidence has illuminated SOX9's complex and often contradictory roles in immune regulation and cancer biology, characterizing it as a "double-edged sword" or Janus-faced regulator [3]. On one hand, SOX9 promotes immune escape by impairing immune cell function, making it a potential therapeutic target in cancer. Conversely, increased SOX9 levels help maintain macrophage function, contributing to cartilage formation, tissue regeneration, and repair [3]. This functional duality is further complicated by SOX9's interactions with other SOX family members, particularly within the SOXE subgroup (SOX8, SOX9, and SOX10), which collectively influence neural crest development and tumor progression [1] [18].

In cancer, SOX9 is frequently overexpressed in various solid malignancies, including liver, lung, breast, gastric, and colorectal cancers, where its expression levels positively correlate with tumor occurrence and progression [3] [57]. SOX9 operates through diverse mechanisms, contributing to vascularization, drug resistance, tumor proliferation, metastasis, and apoptosis evasion [3]. Its expression is regulated at multiple levels, including epigenetic modifications (methylation and acetylation), miRNA-mediated post-transcriptional regulation, and through interactions with long non-coding RNAs [3].

The relationship between SOX9 and tumor immunity represents a particularly active area of investigation. Bioinformatics analyses reveal strong associations between SOX9 expression and immune cell infiltration patterns within the tumor microenvironment [3]. SOX9 overexpression negatively correlates with genes associated with the function of CD8+ T cells, NK cells, and M1 macrophages, while showing positive correlation with memory CD4+ T cells [3]. In prostate cancer, single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics analyses demonstrate that SOX9 contributes to an "immune desert" microenvironment characterized by decreased effector immune cells (CD8+CXCR6+ T cells and activated neutrophils) and increased immunosuppressive cells (Tregs, M2 macrophages, and anergic neutrophils) [3].

Within the broader context of SOX family functions in immunity, several members have been implicated in immune evasion mechanisms. SOX2 induces immune evasion of CD8+ T-cell killing by alleviating the JAK-STAT pathway and interferon-stimulated gene resistance signature expression [1]. SOX4 inhibits the expression of genes in innate and adaptive immune pathways critical to protective tumor immunity [1]. SOX11 expression is associated with an immunosuppressive microenvironment characterized by increased Treg cell infiltration and down-regulation of antigen processing and presentation [1]. SOX12 increases intratumoral regulatory T-cell infiltration and decreases CD8+ T-cell infiltration in liver cancer [1]. These findings position SOX9 within a network of SOX family transcription factors that collectively shape the immune landscape of tumors.

The discovery of natural compounds capable of modulating SOX9 expression therefore holds significant therapeutic promise. Among these, cordycepin (3'-deoxyadenosine), an adenosine analog derived from Cordyceps militaris, has emerged as a particularly promising candidate with demonstrated efficacy in suppressing SOX9 expression across multiple cancer models [57]. This review systematically compares cordycepin with other natural compounds regarding their SOX9-modulating activities, experimental methodologies, and potential applications in targeting SOX9-driven pathologies, with special emphasis on the immune regulatory aspects of SOX9 function.

SOX9 Modulation by Cordycepin: Mechanisms and Experimental Evidence

Cordycepin (3'-deoxyadenosine), a primary bioactive compound isolated from the traditional Chinese medicine Cordyceps sinensis, has demonstrated significant potential as a modulator of SOX9 expression in various cancer models. This adenosine analog exhibits a wide spectrum of biological activities, including anti-inflammatory, anti-tumor, and immunomodulatory effects [57]. Recent investigations have elucidated its specific activity against SOX9, revealing dose-dependent suppression across multiple cancer cell lines.

Experimental Evidence for SOX9 Inhibition by Cordycepin

Comprehensive in vitro studies have demonstrated that cordycepin treatment effectively suppresses both SOX9 protein and mRNA expression in a dose-dependent manner. In prostate cancer cell lines (22RV1 and PC3) and lung cancer cell line H1975, treatment with cordycepin at concentrations of 10, 20, and 40 µM for 24 hours resulted in progressive reduction of SOX9 levels [57]. Western blot analyses confirmed decreased SOX9 protein expression, while quantitative RT-PCR measurements revealed corresponding reductions in SOX9 mRNA, indicating that cordycepin acts at the transcriptional level or through mRNA destabilization mechanisms [57].

Table 1: Dose-Dependent Inhibition of SOX9 by Cordycepin in Cancer Cell Lines

Cell Line	Cancer Type	Cordycepin Concentration	SOX9 Protein Reduction	SOX9 mRNA Reduction	Experimental Reference
22RV1	Prostate	10 µM	Moderate	Moderate	[57]
22RV1	Prostate	20 µM	Significant	Significant	[57]
22RV1	Prostate	40 µM	Maximum inhibition	Maximum inhibition	[57]
PC3	Prostate	10 µM	Moderate	Moderate	[57]
PC3	Prostate	20 µM	Significant	Significant	[57]
PC3	Prostate	40 µM	Maximum inhibition	Maximum inhibition	[57]
H1975	Lung	10 µM	Moderate	Moderate	[57]
H1975	Lung	20 µM	Significant	Significant	[57]
H1975	Lung	40 µM	Maximum inhibition	Maximum inhibition	[57]

The anti-cancer effects of cordycepin correlate with its SOX9-inhibitory activity, as demonstrated through various functional assays. In triple-negative breast cancer models, cordycepin treatment inhibited cell migration and invasion by downregulating transcription factors, including potentially SOX9 [57]. Similarly, in drug-resistant non-small cell lung cancer, cordycepin mediated its effects through regulation of AMPK signaling pathways [57]. These findings position cordycepin as a promising natural compound for targeting SOX9-driven oncogenic pathways.

Proposed Mechanisms of Action

The precise molecular mechanisms through which cordycepin modulates SOX9 expression continue to be elucidated, but several pathways have been implicated based on experimental evidence:

• Transcriptional Regulation: Cordycepin may interfere with SOX9 transcription by modulating the activity of upstream regulators or by direct effects on SOX9 promoter activity.

• Epigenetic Modulation: Similar to other natural compounds, cordycepin may influence epigenetic mechanisms controlling SOX9 expression, including DNA methylation and histone modifications.

• mRNA Stability: As an adenosine analog, cordycepin might affect SOX9 mRNA stability or processing through interference with RNA polyadenylation or direct incorporation into RNA transcripts.

• Indirect Pathways: Cordycepin may suppress SOX9 through activation of AMPK signaling pathways or through modulation of miRNA expression that targets SOX9 transcripts [57].

While the exact mechanism requires further investigation, the consistent observation of dose-dependent SOX9 suppression across multiple cancer cell types supports the specificity of cordycepin's action on SOX9 regulatory pathways.

Comparative Analysis of Natural Compounds Modulating SOX9

Beyond cordycepin, several other natural compounds have demonstrated activity against SOX9, though the evidence base is often less comprehensive. The comparative efficacy, mechanisms, and experimental support for these natural SOX9 modulators are summarized below.

Table 2: Natural Compounds as SOX9 Modulators: Comparative Evidence and Mechanisms

Compound	Source	SOX9 Modulation	Proposed Mechanisms	Experimental Evidence	Cancer Models Tested
Cordycepin	Cordyceps militaris	Downregulation	Transcriptional suppression, AMPK pathway activation, potential epigenetic effects	Dose-dependent reduction of SOX9 protein and mRNA [57]	Prostate cancer, lung cancer, triple-negative breast cancer
Bufalin	Toadstool	Indirect evidence	Not specifically documented for SOX9	Inhibited occurrence and metastasis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gastric cancer [58]	Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, gastric cancer
Various natural extracts	Multiple sources	Limited direct evidence	Regulation of tumor microenvironment, potential SOX9 involvement	Large-scale screening of anticancer drug candidates using SRB assay [59]	Various cancer cell lines

The comparative analysis reveals that cordycepin currently possesses the most substantial experimental evidence supporting its direct SOX9-modulating activity. Other natural compounds, while demonstrating anti-cancer effects in various models, lack specific documentation regarding SOX9 modulation. This highlights both the unique position of cordycepin among natural SOX9 inhibitors and the need for more targeted investigations of other compounds' effects on SOX9 expression and function.

SOX9 Expression Patterns in Pan-Cancers: Context for Therapeutic Targeting

Understanding the expression patterns of SOX9 across different cancer types provides important context for evaluating the potential therapeutic impact of its modulation by natural compounds. Comprehensive pan-cancer analyses have revealed that SOX9 expression is significantly upregulated in fifteen cancer types, including CESC, COAD, ESCA, GBM, KIRP, LGG, LIHC, LUSC, OV, PAAD, READ, STAD, THYM, UCES, and UCS [57]. Conversely, SOX9 expression is significantly decreased in only two cancer types (SKCM and TGCT) compared with matched healthy tissues [57]. This pattern suggests that SOX9 functions primarily as a proto-oncogene across most cancer contexts.

The prognostic significance of SOX9 expression further underscores its therapeutic relevance. High SOX9 expression is positively correlated with worst overall survival in LGG, CESC, and THYM, suggesting its potential utility as a prognostic biomarker [57]. Interestingly, the relationship between SOX9 and cancer outcomes is context-dependent, with high SOX9 expression associated with longer overall survival in ACC [57]. This dual nature mirrors SOX9's functional complexity in different tissue environments.

The extensive overexpression of SOX9 across diverse malignancies, coupled with its association with poor outcomes in specific cancer types, strengthens the rationale for developing therapeutic approaches targeting SOX9, including natural compounds like cordycepin.

SOX9 in Immune Regulation: Implications for Natural Compound Therapy

SOX9 plays a multifaceted role in immune regulation, operating through diverse mechanisms that significantly impact tumor immunity and inflammatory processes. Understanding these immunological functions provides critical context for appreciating the potential therapeutic benefits of SOX9 modulation by natural compounds.

SOX9-Mediated Immunosuppression in the Tumor Microenvironment

In the context of cancer, SOX9 contributes significantly to the establishment of an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment through multiple mechanisms:

• Immune Cell Infiltration Modulation: SOX9 expression negatively correlates with infiltration levels of various immune cell populations, including B cells, resting mast cells, resting T cells, monocytes, plasma cells, and eosinophils [3]. Conversely, it shows positive correlation with neutrophils, macrophages, activated mast cells, and naive/activated T cells [3]. This altered immune landscape facilitates immune evasion.

• Effector Immune Cell Function Inhibition: SOX9 overexpression negatively correlates with genes associated with the function of CD8+ T cells, NK cells, and M1 macrophages [3]. This functional impairment of cytotoxic immune cells further reduces anti-tumor immunity.

• Creation of "Immune Desert" Microenvironments: In prostate cancer, SOX9 contributes to an immunosuppressive milieu characterized by decreased effector immune cells (CD8+CXCR6+ T cells and activated neutrophils) and increased immunosuppressive cells (Tregs, M2 macrophages, and anergic neutrophils) [3]. This creates regions devoid of effective anti-tumor immunity.

• Cancer Dormancy and Immune Evasion: SOX9 plays a crucial role in maintaining cancer cell dormancy and immune evasion. Latent cancer cells exhibit high levels of SOX9 expression, which helps preserve their long-term survival and tumor-initiating capabilities while enabling them to avoid immune surveillance in secondary metastatic sites [18].

SOX9 Interactions with Other SOX Family Members in Immune Regulation

SOX9 does not function in isolation but operates within a network of SOX family transcription factors that collectively shape immune responses:

• SOX2 induces immune evasion of CD8+ T-cell killing by alleviating the JAK-STAT pathway and interferon-stimulated gene resistance signature expression [1].
• SOX4 inhibits the expression of genes in innate and adaptive immune pathways critical to protective tumor immunity [1].
• SOX11 expression is associated with an immunosuppressive microenvironment characterized by increased Treg cell infiltration and down-regulation of antigen processing and presentation [1].
• SOX12 increases intratumoral regulatory T-cell infiltration and decreases CD8+ T-cell infiltration in liver cancer [1].
• SOX5 promotes tumor progression and immune evasion in triple-negative breast cancer through transcriptional activation of circ_0084653 [1].
• SOX13 decreases CD8+ T cell activity in breast cancer [1].
• SOX18 promotes the accumulation of Tregs and immunosuppressive tumor-associated macrophages in the liver cancer microenvironment by transactivating PD-L1 and CXCL12 [1].

These interactions position SOX9 within a broader regulatory network of SOX family proteins that collectively modulate anti-tumor immunity through diverse but complementary mechanisms.

Figure 1: SOX9 in Immune Regulation and Tumor Microenvironment. This diagram illustrates the central role of SOX9 in modulating immune cell function and shaping the tumor microenvironment, alongside its interactions with other SOX family members that collectively promote immunosuppression.

Therapeutic Implications for Natural Compound Therapy

The extensive involvement of SOX9 in immune regulation significantly enhances the therapeutic potential of natural compounds that can modulate its expression. By targeting SOX9, compounds like cordycepin may achieve dual anti-tumor effects through both direct inhibition of cancer cell proliferation and indirect enhancement of anti-tumor immunity. This dual mechanism represents a particularly promising approach for overcoming the immunosuppressive barriers that limit the efficacy of conventional therapies.

Restoration of immune surveillance through SOX9 inhibition could potentially synergize with existing immunotherapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, by converting "immune cold" tumors into "immune hot" environments more responsive to immunotherapy. This strategic approach warrants further investigation in preclinical and clinical settings.

Experimental Protocols for Evaluating SOX9 Modulation

Robust experimental methodologies are essential for evaluating the efficacy and mechanisms of natural compounds as SOX9 modulators. This section details key protocols employed in cited studies and proposes additional approaches for comprehensive investigation.

Cell-Based Assays for SOX9 Expression Analysis

Table 3: Standard Experimental Protocol for Assessing SOX9 Modulation by Natural Compounds

Step	Procedure	Parameters	Technical Considerations
1. Cell Culture	Maintain cancer cell lines in appropriate media with 10% FBS and 1% penicillin/streptomycin at 37°C in 5% CO2 humidified incubator	Cell lines: 22RV1, PC3, H1975, etc.; Media: RPMI 1640 or DMEM with 10-15% FBS	Use authenticated, mycoplasma-free cells; Culture for ≤6 months after resurrection
2. Compound Treatment	Treat cells with natural compound at varying concentrations (e.g., 0, 10, 20, 40 μM) for 24 hours in 12-well plates	Cordycepin concentrations: 0-40 μM; Duration: 24 hours; Solvent: DMSO or water	Include vehicle controls; Ensure consistent solvent concentration across treatments
3. Protein Extraction	Lyse cells in EBC buffer or RIPA lysis buffer supplemented with protease inhibitors	Lysis buffer: RIPA or EBC; Protease inhibitors: PMSF or commercial cocktails	Maintain samples on ice during extraction; Quantify protein concentration using BCA assay
4. Western Blotting	Separate proteins by SDS-PAGE, transfer to PVDF membrane, probe with SOX9 antibodies	Primary antibody: Anti-SOX9 (1:1000); Secondary: HRP-conjugated (1:5000)	Include loading controls (β-actin, GAPDH); Optimize antibody concentrations for specific systems
5. RNA Extraction	Isolate total RNA using TRIzol reagent according to manufacturer's protocol	TRIzol chloroform extraction; RNA precipitation with isopropanol	Ensure RNA integrity (RIN >8.0); DNase treatment to remove genomic DNA contamination
6. qRT-PCR	Reverse transcribe RNA to cDNA, then perform quantitative PCR with SOX9-specific primers	Reverse transcriptase: M-MLV or similar; SYBR Green for detection	Use validated primer sets; Normalize to housekeeping genes (HPRT, β-actin)

This standardized protocol has been successfully employed to demonstrate cordycepin's dose-dependent inhibition of SOX9 in prostate cancer (22RV1, PC3) and lung cancer (H1975) cell lines [57]. The methodology provides a robust framework for evaluating other natural compounds for SOX9-modulating activity.

Functional Assays for Assessing SOX9-Mediated Phenotypes

Beyond expression analysis, functional assays are essential for validating the biological consequences of SOX9 modulation:

• Proliferation Assays: Sulforhodamine B (SRB) assay provides a simple, reproducible method for quantifying cellular protein content as a surrogate for cell number, particularly useful for large-scale screening of anti-cancer compounds [59].

• Migration and Invasion Assays: Transwell assays with or without Matrigel coating can evaluate the impact of SOX9 modulation on cancer cell motility and invasive potential.

• Chemosensitivity Assays: Treatment with natural compounds in combination with standard chemotherapeutic agents (e.g., cisplatin) can assess whether SOX9 inhibition reverses drug resistance.

• Immune Cell Co-culture Assays: Co-culture systems with immune cells (T cells, macrophages) enable evaluation of how SOX9 modulation in cancer cells affects immune cell function and recruitment.

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for Evaluating SOX9 Modulation. This diagram outlines a comprehensive experimental approach for investigating the effects of natural compounds on SOX9 expression and function, incorporating molecular and cellular assays.

Research Reagent Solutions for SOX9 Investigation

A well-curated toolkit of research reagents is essential for rigorous investigation of SOX9 expression, function, and modulation. The following table catalogues essential materials and their applications in SOX9 research.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for SOX9 Investigation

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Applications	Technical Considerations
Cell Culture	Prostate cancer lines (22RV1, PC3); Lung cancer line (H1975); Gastric cancer lines (AGS, MKN28, MKN45)	In vitro modeling of SOX9 function in various cancers	Authenticate lines regularly; Test for mycoplasma contamination; Use within 6 months of resurrection
Natural Compounds	Cordycepin (3'-deoxyadenosine)	SOX9 modulation studies; Dose-response experiments	Prepare fresh stock solutions; Use appropriate vehicle controls; Test stability in culture media
Antibodies	Anti-SOX9 primary antibodies; HRP-conjugated secondary antibodies	Western blotting; Immunohistochemistry; Immunofluorescence	Validate for specific applications; Optimize dilution factors; Include appropriate controls
Molecular Biology Reagents	TRIzol for RNA extraction; Reverse transcriptase; SYBR Green qPCR kits; SOX9-specific primers	RNA extraction; cDNA synthesis; qRT-PCR for SOX9 expression	Use RNase-free techniques; Design primers spanning exon-exon junctions; Include no-template controls
Assay Kits	Sulforhodamine B (SRB) assay kits; Cell proliferation assay kits; Apoptosis detection kits	Cell viability assessment; Cytotoxicity screening; Functional phenotyping	Follow manufacturer protocols; Include standard curves; Optimize cell seeding density
Animal Models	Patient-derived xenografts (PDX); Genetically engineered mouse models	In vivo validation of SOX9 modulation; Therapeutic efficacy studies	Consider immune-deficient hosts for xenografts; Follow ethical guidelines; Include proper controls

Additional specialized reagents mentioned in the literature include:

• Sulforhodamine 101 (SR101): Although primarily used as a fluorescent tracer for astrocyte labeling in neuroscience research [60] [61], SR101 derivatives have been developed for positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, demonstrating the potential for developing SOX9-targeted imaging agents.

• dTAG System: For precise modulation of transcription factor levels, the degradation tag (dTAG) system enables tunable control of SOX9 dosage in human embryonic stem cell-derived cranial neural crest cells, allowing investigation of dose-dependent effects [62].

These research tools facilitate comprehensive investigation of SOX9 regulation and function, enabling researchers to elucidate the mechanisms of natural compound-mediated SOX9 modulation and its functional consequences in cancer and immune regulation.

The comprehensive analysis presented in this review establishes cordycepin as a promising natural compound modulator of SOX9 expression with demonstrated efficacy across multiple cancer models. Its dose-dependent suppression of SOX9 at both protein and mRNA levels, coupled with its favorable safety profile as a natural product, positions it as an attractive candidate for further therapeutic development. The expanding understanding of SOX9's dual functionality in cancer progression and immune regulation further enhances the potential value of effective SOX9 modulators.

Future research directions should prioritize several key areas:

• Mechanistic Elucidation: While cordycepin's SOX9-suppressive activity is established, the precise molecular mechanisms require further investigation, including potential effects on SOX9 transcription, mRNA stability, and protein degradation.

• Combination Strategies: Given SOX9's role in chemoresistance, exploring cordycepin in combination with standard chemotherapeutic agents represents a promising approach for overcoming treatment resistance.

• Immunomodulatory Applications: The extensive involvement of SOX9 in immune evasion mechanisms warrants investigation of cordycepin's potential to enhance anti-tumor immunity and possibly synergize with immunotherapies.

• Structural Optimization: Medicinal chemistry approaches may yield cordycepin analogs with enhanced potency, selectivity, and pharmacokinetic properties while retaining favorable safety profiles.

• Clinical Translation: Well-designed preclinical studies and subsequent clinical trials are essential for advancing cordycepin and other natural SOX9 modulators toward clinical application.

As research continues to unravel the complex biology of SOX9 and its interactions within the SOX family network, natural compounds like cordycepin offer valuable tools for both basic research and therapeutic development. Their multi-faceted mechanisms of action and generally favorable toxicity profiles position them as promising candidates for targeting SOX9-driven pathologies, particularly in the context of cancer and immune dysregulation.

Computational Approaches for Mapping SOX Protein Interaction Networks

The SRY-related HMG-box (SOX) family of transcription factors represents a critically conserved group of proteins that govern essential biological processes, including embryonic development, cell fate determination, and tissue homeostasis. Comprising approximately 20 members in mammals, these proteins share a highly homologous high-mobility group (HMG) domain that facilitates DNA binding and bending, ultimately influencing chromatin architecture and gene expression [2]. The dysregulation of SOX proteins is increasingly implicated in various human diseases, particularly cancer, where they modulate oncogenic processes such as invasion, metastasis, stemness, and drug resistance [1] [2]. Among family members, SOX9 has emerged as a particularly significant player in immune regulation and tumor pathogenesis, driving transcriptional reprogramming toward stem-like states and contributing to immunosuppressive tumor microenvironments [10] [63].

Understanding the intricate interaction networks of SOX proteins, especially SOX9, has become paramount for elucidating their mechanistic roles in both physiology and pathology. These proteins do not function in isolation but rather within complex regulatory circuits involving protein-protein interactions, chromatin remodeling complexes, and transcriptional cascades. Computational biology provides an indispensable toolkit for mapping these networks, integrating multi-omics data, predicting novel interactions, and modeling the systems-level consequences of SOX protein activity. This guide objectively compares the performance, applications, and limitations of current computational frameworks for mapping SOX protein interaction networks, with a specific focus on their implications for immune regulation research.

SOX Family Biology and Immune Regulatory Context

SOX Protein Classification and Structure

SOX proteins are classified into eight subgroups (A-H) based on HMG domain similarity, with members within subgroups often exhibiting functional redundancy and synergistic actions [2]. The HMG domain, consisting of approximately 79 amino acids, recognizes the specific DNA sequence motif WWCAAW (W = A/T) and induces DNA bending, thereby altering chromatin organization and facilitating the assembly of transcriptional complexes [1] [2]. Beyond the HMG domain, SOX proteins contain additional functional domains that enable interactions with various protein partners, including transcriptional co-activators, chromatin modifiers, and other DNA-binding proteins. These interactions are crucial for their context-specific functions and are often regulated by post-translational modifications such as acetylation, SUMOylation, and phosphorylation, which influence their subcellular localization, stability, and transcriptional activity [2].

SOX9 in Immune Regulation and Cancer

Recent evidence has positioned SOX9 as a pivotal regulator in cancer immune evasion and the formation of immunosuppressive tumor microenvironments. In high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), SOX9 expression is epigenetically upregulated following platinum-based chemotherapy, driving a stem-like transcriptional state associated with chemoresistance [10]. Single-cell RNA sequencing analyses of patient tumors before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy confirmed this population-level induction of SOX9, highlighting its role in promoting tumor cell survival and adaptability under therapeutic pressure [10].

In glioblastoma (GBM), SOX9 expression correlates significantly with immune cell infiltration and checkpoint expression, identifying it as both a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker, particularly in isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutant cases [63]. The involvement of SOX9 in immune suppression extends to its influence on regulatory T-cells (Tregs), tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), and the expression of immune checkpoint proteins like PD-L1 [1] [2]. This multifaceted role in shaping the tumor immune landscape underscores the necessity of comprehensively mapping SOX9 interaction networks to identify novel therapeutic targets for cancer immunotherapy.

Computational Frameworks for Protein Interaction Mapping

Experimental Data-Driven Network Construction

A foundational approach for mapping SOX protein interactions involves constructing networks from experimentally validated data sourced from public databases. This method leverages high-throughput techniques like affinity purification mass spectrometry and yeast two-hybrid screens to establish physical protein-protein interactions (PPIs).

Table 1: Key Databases for Experimental Protein Interaction Data

Database	Interaction Type	SOX9-Specific Findings	Applications
IntAct	Physical interactions, high/medium confidence	15 direct interactors including EP300, GSK3B, USP7 [64]	Hypothesis generation; validation of predicted interactions
BioGRID	Physical, genetic interactions	103 interactions with NFIA; 372 with EP300 [64]	Network topology analysis; identification of central nodes
STRING	Functional associations, integrated evidence	PPI network construction for disease gene discovery [65]	Context-specific network analysis; pathway enrichment

The Human Protein Atlas provides a consensus view of SOX9 interactors, identifying key regulatory proteins such as EP300 (a histone acetyltransferase), GSK3B (involved in protein phosphorylation and degradation), and USP7 (a deubiquitinating enzyme) [64]. These interactions suggest sophisticated regulatory mechanisms controlling SOX9 stability, transcriptional activity, and post-translational modification. NFIA (Nuclear Factor I/A) emerges as a particularly prominent SOX9 interactor with 103 documented interactions in BioGRID, highlighting a potentially significant partnership in transcriptional regulation [64].

Polymer Modeling for Chromatin-Driven Interactions

Beyond direct protein-protein interactions, SOX proteins function within the three-dimensional nuclear space where chromatin architecture profoundly influences their access to genomic targets. Computational polymer modeling informed by Hi-C data simulates the 3D conformation of chromatin, enabling predictions about spatial enhancer-promoter interactions that conventional PPI networks cannot capture.

This framework utilizes a bead-spring polymer model informed by Hi-C contact maps to generate an ensemble of 3D chromatin conformations. These conformations are then coupled to gene transcription levels through a Markov chain model, with transition rates derived from molecular dynamics (MD) simulations [66]. The efficacy of this approach was demonstrated by simulating the perturbation of a CTCF-mediated topologically associating domain (TAD) boundary, which accurately predicted the resulting impact on sox9 and kcnj2 gene expression. The model revealed that increased kcnj2 transcription was a consequence of enhancers within the sox9 TAD becoming accessible upon boundary disruption [66].

Table 2: Quantitative Performance of Polymer Model

Metric	Reported Performance	Methodological Basis
Contact Map Correlation	Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.96 with experimental cHiC data [66]	Comparison of model-derived contact maps with experimental cHiC
Ensemble Conformation Analysis	4×10^6 distinct configurations recorded [66]	MD simulations with 200 different initial conditions
Enhancer-Promoter Quantification	Average of 3.21 enhancers surrounding the sox9 promoter [66]	Tracking pairwise contacts between 44 enhancers and promoters

The following diagram illustrates the integrated computational workflow for predicting gene expression changes from chromatin structure, combining polymer modeling and molecular dynamics simulations.

Network-Based Prediction Algorithms

Network-based machine learning algorithms represent a powerful complementary approach for identifying novel SOX-associated genes and interactions. These methods leverage protein-protein interaction networks as a scaffold to prioritize genes based on their network proximity to known disease-associated seeds.

The GenePlexus methodology integrates network propagation with machine learning to predict genes associated with specific pathological conditions. This framework utilizes three distinct representation matrices of the gene network—adjacency, influence, and node embedding matrices—to characterize network neighborhoods as features for each gene [65]. When applied to pathological myopia, this approach identified 21 new genes associated with degenerative myopia and 133 genes linked to high myopia with significant confidence [65]. While not directly applied to SOX proteins in the available literature, this methodology demonstrates the potential for discovering novel components of SOX-associated networks in immune regulation and cancer.

Similarly, random walk with restart (RWR) algorithms simulate a random traversal of the PPI network that preferentially visits nodes connected to known seed genes, effectively prioritizing candidate genes based on their network topology [65]. These methods are particularly valuable for identifying potential SOX co-regulators or downstream targets that may not exhibit direct physical interactions but function within shared biological modules.

Comparative Analysis of Computational Approaches

Performance Metrics and Limitations

Each computational approach offers distinct advantages and limitations for mapping SOX protein networks, making them suitable for different research objectives and experimental contexts.

Table 3: Comparative Analysis of Computational Approaches

Method	Spatial Resolution	Throughput	Key Limitations	Ideal Use Cases
Experimental Data-Driven Networks	Protein-level only	High	Incomplete coverage; context-independent data	Initial hypothesis generation; validation studies
Polymer Modeling	Nucleosome to TAD level	Computationally intensive	Relies on population-averaged HiC data	Predicting effects of structural variants; enhancer-promoter dynamics
Network-Based Prediction	Pathway/Module level	Very high	Limited by quality of seed genes and PPI network	Novel gene discovery; prioritizing candidates for validation

Experimental data-driven networks provide high-confidence physical interactions but often lack cellular context and may miss transient or condition-specific associations. Polymer modeling excels at capturing spatial genome organization but requires specialized computational resources and expertise. Network-based prediction algorithms offer powerful discovery capabilities but generate predictions requiring experimental validation rather than confirmed interactions.

Integration with Multi-Omics Data

The most robust understanding of SOX protein networks emerges from integrating multiple computational approaches with complementary omics datasets. For instance, SOX9's role in promoting a stem-like transcriptional state in ovarian cancer was elucidated through single-cell RNA sequencing combined with epigenetic profiling of super-enhancers [10]. This integrated analysis revealed that SOX9 expression correlates with increased transcriptional divergence—a metric of cellular plasticity calculated as the ratio of highly expressed genes to lowly expressed genes (P50/P50) [10].

The following workflow diagram illustrates how multi-omics data integration can power a comprehensive analysis of SOX protein networks, from data acquisition to biological insight.

Experimental Protocols for Validation

Chromatin Conformation Capture-Based Methods

To validate computationally predicted chromatin interactions involving SOX proteins, Chromatin Conformation Capture (3C)-derived methods provide experimental confirmation:

• Crosslinking: Treat cells with formaldehyde to fix protein-DNA and protein-protein interactions.
• Digestion: Use restriction enzymes or fragmentation to digest chromatin.
• Ligation: Perform proximity-based ligation under dilute conditions to favor junctions between interacting fragments.
• Quantification: Analyze ligation products quantitatively via PCR (3C), sequencing (Hi-C, HiChIP), or microarray (4C, 5C).
• Data Analysis: Map sequencing reads to the reference genome, normalize for technical biases, and identify statistically significant interactions.

This protocol successfully revealed the spatial segregation of sox9 and kcnj2 TADs and the impact of TAD boundary disruption on enhancer-promoter communications [66].

Protein-Protein Interaction Validation

For validating predicted protein-protein interactions:

• Co-Immunoprecipitation (Co-IP): Incubate cell lysates with antibodies against SOX proteins or candidate partners, followed by western blotting to detect co-precipitated proteins.
• Proximity Ligation Assay (PLA): Enable visualization of protein interactions in situ with single-molecule resolution.
• Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR): Quantify binding kinetics and affinities of purified SOX proteins with candidate partners.

These methods have confirmed interactions between SOX9 and regulatory proteins like EP300, GSK3B, and USP7 [64].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for SOX Network Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application
SOX9 Antibodies	Validated monoclonal antibodies for IHC, IF, ChIP	Protein localization, expression quantification, chromatin binding studies
Chromatin Conformation Kits	Hi-C, ChIA-PET kits	Experimental validation of predicted chromatin interactions
CRISPR/Cas9 Systems	SOX9-targeting sgRNA, knockout cell lines	Functional validation of SOX9 interactions and network components
Public Databases	Human Protein Atlas, STRING, DisGeNET	Source of interaction data and computational network frameworks
Software Tools	GenePlexus, Cytoscape, MD simulation packages	Network analysis, prediction, and visualization
Chlorodimedone	Chlorodimedone, CAS:7298-89-7, MF:C8H11ClO2, MW:174.62 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
2-[(2,6-diaminopurin-9-yl)methoxy]ethanol	2-[(2,6-diaminopurin-9-yl)methoxy]ethanol|59277-86-0

Computational approaches for mapping SOX protein interaction networks have revealed the sophisticated regulatory circuitry through which these transcription factors, particularly SOX9, control immune regulation and tumor pathogenesis. Integrated methodologies that combine experimental data-driven networks, polymer modeling of chromatin structure, and network-based prediction algorithms provide complementary insights into SOX protein function at multiple biological scales. As these computational frameworks continue to evolve with advances in single-cell multi-omics and artificial intelligence, they promise to unravel the context-specific dynamics of SOX protein networks with unprecedented resolution, ultimately accelerating the discovery of novel therapeutic targets for cancer and immune-related diseases.

Challenges and Optimization Strategies in SOX-Targeted Immunotherapy

The transcription factor SOX9 (SRY-related HMG-box 9) presents a significant paradox in cancer biology, functioning as either an oncogene or tumor suppressor in a context-dependent manner. As a key member of the SOX family, SOX9 plays crucial roles in embryonic development, cell differentiation, and stem cell maintenance. Its gene is located on chromosome 17 and encodes a 509-amino acid polypeptide containing several functional domains: an N-terminal dimerization domain (DIM), a central high-mobility group (HMG) box DNA-binding domain, two transcriptional activation domains (TAM and TAC), and a C-terminal proline/glutamine/alanine-rich domain [3]. The HMG domain facilitates DNA binding and nuclear localization, while the transactivation domains interact with various cofactors to regulate gene expression. Recent research has illuminated SOX9's complex involvement in immune regulation and tumor progression, where it exhibits dualistic functions that depend on cellular context, tumor type, and microenvironmental factors [67] [3]. This comparison guide objectively analyzes the experimental evidence for SOX9's opposing roles in cancer, with particular emphasis on its interactions within the SOX family network and implications for immune system regulation.

SOX9 Molecular Structure and Regulation

SOX9's functional versatility stems from its complex protein structure and multifaceted regulation. The HMG box domain not only mediates DNA binding but also induces DNA bending, thereby altering chromatin organization and facilitating the assembly of transcriptional complexes [3]. SOX9 activity is regulated at multiple levels, including through post-translational modifications (phosphorylation, acetylation, ubiquitination), epigenetic mechanisms (DNA methylation, histone modifications), and post-transcriptional regulation by microRNAs and long non-coding RNAs [67] [21]. These regulatory mechanisms enable precise control of SOX9 activity in different cellular contexts. SOX9 belongs to the SOXE subgroup alongside SOX8 and SOX10, which share structural similarities but have distinct biological functions [1]. The SOX family is categorized into groups A through I based on sequence similarity and functional properties, with SOX9 falling into group E. This classification is significant as different SOX members can have compensatory or antagonistic relationships in cancer development [1].

Table 1: SOX9 Protein Domains and Functional Characteristics

Domain	Position	Function	Experimental Evidence
Dimerization Domain (DIM)	N-terminal	Facilitates protein-protein interactions and dimer formation	Co-immunoprecipitation assays demonstrate self-dimerization and heterodimerization with other SOXE proteins [3]
HMG Box	Central	DNA binding, nuclear localization, chromatin bending	Electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSA) confirm specific DNA sequence recognition; mutation analyses identify nuclear localization signals [3]
Transcriptional Activation Domain (TAM)	Middle	Transcriptional activation through cofactor recruitment	Reporter gene assays show TAM deletion reduces transactivation capacity by ~60% [3]
Transcriptional Activation Domain (TAC)	C-terminal	Primary transactivation domain, interacts with Tip60	Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) demonstrates TAC essential for β-catenin inhibition during differentiation [3]
PQA-rich Domain	C-terminal	Modulates transcriptional activation potential	Deletion constructs reveal synergistic function with TAC; exact mechanism under investigation [3]

SOX9 as an Oncogene: Mechanisms and Experimental Evidence

Pro-Tumorigenic Functions Across Cancer Types

In most solid malignancies, SOX9 functions as a potent oncogene, with overexpression correlating strongly with advanced disease stage, metastasis, and poor prognosis. SOX9 exhibits oncogenic properties in diverse cancers including hepatocellular carcinoma, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and ovarian cancer [67] [3] [21]. The pro-tumorigenic mechanisms of SOX9 include promotion of cancer stem cell (CSC) properties, induction of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), enhancement of cell proliferation, inhibition of senescence and apoptosis, and contribution to therapy resistance [67] [10] [21]. In high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), SOX9 drives chemoresistance by reprogramming the transcriptional state of naive cells into a stem-like state through epigenetic modifications [10]. Platinum-based chemotherapy induces robust SOX9 upregulation within 72 hours of treatment, and SOX9 expression is sufficient to confer significant platinum resistance in vivo [10].

SOX9 in Cancer Stem Cell Maintenance and Immune Evasion

SOX9 plays a pivotal role in maintaining cancer stem cells (CSCs), a subpopulation with self-renewal capacity and enhanced resistance mechanisms. Single-cell RNA sequencing analyses of patient tumors have identified rare clusters of SOX9-expressing cells that are highly enriched for CSC markers and chemoresistance-associated stress gene modules [10]. The mechanistic relationship between SOX9 and immune evasion represents a critical aspect of its oncogenic function. SOX9 expression correlates with altered immune cell infiltration patterns in the tumor microenvironment, generally favoring an immunosuppressive state [3] [1]. In colorectal cancer, SOX9 expression negatively correlates with infiltration of B cells, resting mast cells, resting T cells, monocytes, plasma cells, and eosinophils, while showing positive correlation with neutrophils, macrophages, activated mast cells, and naive/activated T cells [3]. SOX9 also suppresses antitumor immunity by impairing the function of CD8+ T cells and NK cells while promoting M2 macrophage polarization [3] [1].

Table 2: SOX9 Oncogenic Functions Across Cancer Types

Cancer Type	Oncogenic Function	Experimental Evidence	Clinical Correlation
Hepatocellular Carcinoma	Promotes invasion, metastasis, and stemness	ChIP-seq analysis reveals SOX9 activates Wnt/β-catenin via Frizzled-7; knockdown reduces invasiveness in vitro [21]	High expression linked to advanced tumor stage, poorer disease-free and overall survival [21]
Ovarian Cancer	Drives chemoresistance and stem-like state	scRNA-seq of patient tumors pre/post chemotherapy shows SOX9 induction; CRISPR/Cas9 knockout increases platinum sensitivity [10]	Top quartile SOX9 expression associated with shorter overall survival (HR=1.33; log-rank P=0.017) [10]
Colorectal Cancer	Promotes proliferation, senescence inhibition	Truncating mutations in exon 3 generate stabilized protein isoforms; transgenic models show increased tumor growth [68] [69]	SOX9 mutations enriched in KRAS mutant/TP53 wild-type subtypes; overexpression common [68]
Breast Cancer	Enhances proliferation, tumorigenesis, metastasis	Xenograft models demonstrate SOX9 knockdown reduces tumor growth and metastatic potential [21]	High expression correlates with poor overall survival [21]
Prostate Cancer	Promotes cell proliferation, apoptosis resistance	Immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays shows SOX9 overexpression in advanced disease [21]	Associated with high clinical stage, poor relapse-free and overall survival [21]

SOX9 as a Tumor Suppressor: Mechanisms and Experimental Evidence

Growth-Suppressive Functions in Specific Contexts

Despite its predominant oncogenic role, SOX9 demonstrates tumor suppressor activity in certain biological contexts. This paradoxical function is particularly evident in specific cancer subtypes, including some cases of prostate cancer, cervical carcinoma, and melanoma [68] [69] [21]. In prostate cancer, contrasting evidence shows that while SOX9 often acts as an oncogene, some studies report that its overexpression can decrease cell proliferation and increase apoptotic activity [68]. Similarly, in cervical carcinoma, SOX9 expression is decreased compared to normal cervical tissue, and in vitro experiments demonstrate that SOX9 overexpression inhibits cell growth and tumor formation [68]. The molecular basis for these context-dependent effects appears to involve tissue-specific cofactors, differential post-translational modifications, and distinct signaling pathway interactions that alter SOX9's transcriptional output and functional consequences.

SOX9 in Colorectal Cancer: A Case of Dual Functions

Colorectal cancer represents a particularly illustrative example of SOX9's functional duality, with compelling evidence supporting both oncogenic and tumor suppressor roles. A recent study utilizing sophisticated genetic mouse models demonstrated that SOX9 suppression in colon cancer promotes epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and induces SOX2 expression, thereby enhancing tumor invasiveness and malignant progression [70]. This tumor suppressor function contrasts with other studies in colorectal cancer that have identified SOX9 as a promoter of proliferation and senescence inhibition [69]. Analysis of SOX9 mutations in colorectal cancer reveals that approximately 10.7% of cases harbor SOX9 mutations, with the majority (82%) being frameshift or nonsense mutations that truncate the protein [68]. Interestingly, these truncating mutations, particularly in exon 3, result in stabilized protein isoforms that retain oncogenic properties, potentially explaining some of the contradictory findings in different experimental systems [68].

Experimental Approaches for Studying SOX9 Functions

Methodologies for Investigating SOX9 in Cancer Models

The complex dual nature of SOX9 necessitates sophisticated experimental approaches to delineate its context-dependent functions. Key methodologies include chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing (ChIP-seq) to identify genome-wide binding sites, CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing for functional studies, single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) to characterize SOX9-expressing cellular subpopulations, and immunohistochemical analysis of patient specimens to correlate expression patterns with clinical outcomes [10] [68] [71]. For investigating SOX9's role in chemoresistance, researchers have employed longitudinal single-cell analysis of patient tumors before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, revealing that SOX9 expression increases following treatment in 8 of 11 patients [10]. Epigenetic profiling techniques including super-enhancer mapping have identified SOX9 as a resistant state-specific, super-enhancer-regulated transcription factor in ovarian cancer models [10].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for SOX9 Investigation

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Experimental Use Cases
SOX9 Antibodies	Anti-SOX9 (Chemicom AB5535), Anti-SOX9 (Santa Cruz sc-20095)	Immunodetection, immunoprecipitation	IHC on patient tissue microarrays; Western blot for protein expression; ChIP for binding site mapping [68] [69]
Genetic Modification Tools	CRISPR/Cas9 sgRNAs, SOX9-shRNAs (Origene sh1/sh75, sh2/sh73)	Gain/loss-of-function studies	SOX9 knockout sensitizes to platinum drugs; knockdown validates oncogenic function [10] [69]
Cell Line Models	OVCAR4, Kuramochi, COV362 (ovarian); HT-29 (colorectal)	In vitro mechanistic studies	Carboplatin treatment induces SOX9 in ovarian lines; SOX9 ablation effects on growth [10] [69]
Animal Models	Xenograft models, genetically engineered mice (Sox9Flox/flox)	In vivo functional validation	SOX9 expression sufficient for chemoresistance; conditional knockout studies [10] [69]
Sequencing Assays	ChIP-seq, scRNA-seq, bulk RNA-seq	Genomic profiling	Identify SOX9 binding targets; characterize SOX9+ subpopulations; transcriptional programs [10] [71]

SOX9 in Immune Regulation: Interactions with the SOX Family Network

SOX9 as a Double-Edged Sword in Immunity

SOX9 exhibits complex, context-dependent functions in immune regulation that mirror its dual roles in tumorigenesis. On one hand, SOX9 promotes cancer immune escape by impairing immune cell function, particularly through suppression of CD8+ T cell activity, NK cell-mediated cytotoxicity, and M1 macrophage polarization while enhancing immunosuppressive cell populations [3] [1]. On the other hand, in non-malignant contexts, SOX9 contributes to tissue repair and regeneration by maintaining macrophage function and promoting cartilage formation [3]. This "double-edged sword" characteristic positions SOX9 as a critical node in the intersection of cancer development and immune regulation. The immunological functions of SOX9 extend to its roles in normal immune cell development, where it participates in T cell lineage commitment by cooperating with c-Maf to activate Rorc and key Tγδ17 effector genes (Il17a and Blk), thereby influencing the balance between αβ T cell and γδ T cell differentiation [3].

SOX Family Network in Immune Evasion

SOX9 operates within a broader network of SOX family transcription factors that collectively regulate cancer immune evasion through diverse mechanisms. Multiple SOX members have been implicated in modulating the tumor immune microenvironment, including SOX2, SOX4, SOX5, SOX11, SOX12, and SOX18 [1]. These family members employ strategies such as regulation of antigen presentation pathways, recruitment of immunosuppressive cells (Tregs, TAMs, MDSCs), and control of immune checkpoint molecules like PD-L1 [1]. For instance, SOX2 upregulates PD-L1 expression on tumor cells and enhances Treg recruitment, while SOX4 inhibits genes critical to both innate and adaptive immune pathways [1]. SOX18 promotes accumulation of Tregs and immunosuppressive tumor-associated macrophages by transactivating PD-L1 and CXCL12 [1]. This functional specialization among SOX family members creates a coordinated network of immune regulatory mechanisms that tumors exploit to evade immune destruction.

Comparative Analysis of SOX9 Functions: Oncogene vs. Tumor Suppressor

Context-Determining Factors and Molecular Mechanisms

The dichotomous nature of SOX9 as either an oncogene or tumor suppressor is determined by multiple contextual factors including tissue type, genetic background, cellular microenvironment, and disease stage. In its oncogenic role, SOX9 frequently activates stemness-associated pathways including Wnt/β-catenin signaling, interacts with polycomb proteins like Bmi1 to repress tumor suppressor loci such as Ink4a/Arf, and promotes EMT through regulation of SNAIL and SLUG transcription factors [69] [21]. As a tumor suppressor, SOX9 can inhibit EMT and suppress SOX2 expression, as demonstrated in colon cancer models [70]. The functional outcome appears to depend on specific protein-protein interactions, post-translational modifications, and the constellation of cofactors available in different cellular contexts. Mutational status also influences SOX9 function, as truncating mutations in exon 3 generate stabilized protein isoforms with potential oncogenic properties, while certain missense mutations may impair tumor suppressor functions [68].

Therapeutic Implications and Future Directions

The context-dependent functions of SOX9 present both challenges and opportunities for therapeutic development. Targeting SOX9 in cancers where it acts as an oncogene holds promise for overcoming chemoresistance and eliminating cancer stem cells [67] [10]. However, therapeutic strategies must account for potential tumor-suppressive functions in specific contexts to avoid unintended consequences. Future research directions should focus on elucidating the precise molecular determinants that dictate SOX9's functional output, developing methods to selectively inhibit its oncogenic functions while preserving or enhancing tumor suppressor activities, and exploring SOX9 as a biomarker for treatment response and patient stratification. The integration of SOX9-targeting approaches with immunotherapies represents a particularly promising avenue, given SOX9's established roles in regulating tumor immune microenvironments [3] [1]. As our understanding of SOX9's complex biology continues to evolve, so too will opportunities to translate these insights into improved cancer therapies.

Table 4: Comparative Analysis of SOX9 Oncogenic vs. Tumor Suppressor Functions

Characteristic	Oncogenic SOX9	Tumor Suppressor SOX9
Expression Pattern	Overexpressed in most solid tumors	Reduced expression in specific contexts (e.g., cervical cancer)
Cellular Processes	Promotes proliferation, EMT, stemness, therapy resistance	Inhibits EMT, cell growth, and malignant progression
Immune Modulation	Suppresses antitumor immunity; impairs CD8+ T cells and NK cells	Limited data on immune functions in suppressor role
Key Pathways	Activates Wnt/β-catenin, represses Ink4a/Arf via Bmi1	Inhibits SOX2; context-dependent pathway modulation
Genetic Alterations	Truncating mutations (exon 3), gene amplification	Inactivating mutations in specific cancer types
Therapeutic Implications	Potential target to overcome chemoresistance and eliminate CSCs	Caution required when considering SOX9 inhibition
Experimental Evidence	Strong evidence across multiple cancer types	Limited to specific contexts (e.g., colon, cervical, prostate)

Overcoming Functional Redundancy Among SOXE Group Members (SOX8, SOX9, SOX10)

The SOXE transcription factor subgroup, comprising SOX8, SOX9, and SOX10, plays critical roles in development, cellular differentiation, and disease. These proteins share a highly conserved high-mobility group (HMG) domain that mediates DNA binding, leading to significant functional redundancy where they can bind similar DNA sequences and regulate common target genes [2] [72]. However, growing evidence reveals that these paralogs exert non-equivalent biological effects despite their structural similarities [73] [23] [74]. Understanding the molecular basis for these functional differences is essential for developing targeted therapeutic strategies, particularly in cancer and immune regulation contexts where SOXE members demonstrate antagonistic roles [23] [75]. This guide systematically compares the functional properties of SOXE proteins, summarizes experimental approaches for dissecting their redundancy, and highlights their distinct roles in immune regulation.

Comparative Analysis of SOXE Member Expression and Function

Table 1: Expression patterns and functional roles of SOXE transcription factors

SOXE Member	Expression in Normal Melanocytes	Expression in Melanoma	Primary Functional Role	Impact on Tumorigenesis
SOX8	Low expression [73]	Variable [23]	Limited impact on development; mild differentiation effects [73] [76]	Limited data
SOX9	Not detectable [23]	Expressed in 41% of primary melanomas [23]	Anti-tumorigenic in melanoma; cell cycle arrest [23]	Tumor suppressor in melanoma [23] [75]
SOX10	High expression [23]	Strong expression in 100% of primary melanomas [23]	Pro-tumorigenic; promotes melanoma initiation and progression [23]	Oncogenic in melanoma [23]

Table 2: Transcriptional activity and functional equivalence across tissues

SOXE Member	Number of DEGs in Oln93 Cells	Strength of Transcriptional Activation	Functional Rescue of Sox10 Deficiency	Binding Site Specificity
SOX8	179 DEGs [76]	Substantially lower [76]	Limited in melanocytes and ENS [74]	Similar to SOX10 [73]
SOX9	836 DEGs [76]	Strong [76]	Not applicable	Similar to SOX10 [23]
SOX10	1002 DEGs [76]	Strong [76]	Reference standard	Reference standard

Molecular Basis for Functional Differences

Protein Expression Levels and Transcriptional Output

Despite similar DNA-binding capabilities, SOXE factors differ significantly in their transcriptional efficacy. When expressed at comparable levels in oligodendroglial Oln93 cells, SOX8 regulated only 179 genes, whereas SOX9 and SOX10 influenced 836 and 1002 genes, respectively [76]. This substantially lower transcriptional activity of SOX8 occurs despite comparable binding to relevant regulatory regions, suggesting differences in interactions with partner proteins rather than DNA-binding capability [76].

Protein Domains and Functional Dissection

The molecular basis for differential SOX8/SOX10 activity maps to the aminoterminal one third of the protein rather than the carboxyterminal transactivation domains [76]. This region likely influences partner protein interactions that modulate transcriptional output. All SOXE proteins regulate similar biological processes (myelination, glial differentiation, cholesterol metabolism), but with different efficiencies [76].

Figure 1: Molecular relationships and functional outcomes of SOXE transcription factors. Despite similar DNA-binding capabilities, SOXE members exhibit distinct expression patterns and functional consequences due to differences in protein expression levels, transcriptional activity, and cellular context.

SOXE Factors in Immune Regulation and Cancer

Antagonistic Roles in Melanoma Pathogenesis

SOX9 and SOX10 exhibit functional antagonism in melanoma development. While SOX10 promotes melanoma initiation and progression, SOX9 exerts anti-tumorigenic effects including cell cycle arrest and apoptosis [23]. Reduction of SOX10 in melanoma cells upregulates SOX9, which in turn binds to the SOX10 promoter, creating a negative feedback loop that reinforces the anti-tumorigenic program [23].

SOX9 as a Dual Regulator in Immunity

SOX9 plays a complex "double-edged sword" role in immunology, acting as both a promoter of immune escape in cancer and a facilitator of tissue repair in inflammatory conditions [3]. In melanoma, SOX9 indirectly regulates CEACAM1 expression through interaction with Sp1 and ETS1 transcription factors, influencing T cell-mediated killing and immune resistance [75].

Table 3: SOX9 in immune regulation and cancer

Biological Context	SOX9 Function	Molecular Mechanism	Therapeutic Implication
Melanoma Immune Resistance	Promotes immune escape [75]	Indirect regulation of CEACAM1 via Sp1/ETS1 [75]	Potential target for combination immunotherapy
Tumor Microenvironment	Regulates immune cell infiltration [3]	Correlates with neutrophil, macrophage, T cell populations [3]	Biomarker for immune contexture
General Cancer Role	Dual role: pro- and anti-tumorigenic [3]	Context-dependent; varies by cancer type [3]	Requires careful therapeutic evaluation

Figure 2: SOX9 regulatory networks in immune resistance and tumor suppression. SOX9 indirectly regulates CEACAM1 to promote immune resistance while simultaneously repressing SOX10 to activate anti-tumorigenic programs, illustrating its dual functionality.

Experimental Approaches for Dissecting Functional Redundancy

Gene Replacement Studies

Experimental Protocol: To test functional equivalence between SOX8 and SOX10, researchers employed targeted mutagenesis to replace Sox10 with Sox8 in mice [74]. This involved:

• Generating Sox8 knock-in alleles at the Sox10 locus
• Assessing phenotypic rescue in Sox10-deficient mice across multiple tissues
• Comparing developmental outcomes in nervous system, melanocytes, and oligodendrocytes

Key Findings: The rescue capability was tissue-dependent: nearly normal in sensory and sympathetic nervous system, limited in enteric nervous system and oligodendrocyte differentiation, and absent in melanocyte development [74].

Transcriptional Profiling in Defined Cellular Systems

Experimental Protocol: To compare transcriptional activities, researchers used CRISPR/Cas9 to generate Sox10-deficient oligodendroglial Oln93 cells, then reintroduced individual SOXE factors via lentiviral transduction [76]. The methodology included:

• Bulk RNA-sequencing of polyclonal cell lines expressing Sox8, Sox9, or Sox10
• Differential gene expression analysis using DESeq2
• Gene ontology studies of upregulated genes
• Binding site analysis through ChIP-sequencing

Key Findings: Despite comparable binding to regulatory regions, SOX8 exhibited substantially lower transcriptional activity, influencing fewer genes with smaller expression changes [76].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key research reagents for studying SOXE transcription factors

Reagent/Cell Line	Specific Application	Key Features/Considerations	Reference
Oln93 oligodendroglial cell line	Transcriptional profiling of SOXE factors	Sox10-deficient variant available via CRISPR/Cas9; enables clean functional comparisons	[76]
Anti-SOX9 antibody (sc-20095)	Specific detection of SOX9 in IHC/Western	Only anti-SOX9 antibody tested without SOX10 cross-reactivity	[23]
iDct-GFP mouse line	Isolation and analysis of melanocytes	Enables FACS sorting of melanocytes for transcriptomic analysis	[23]
Sox10-deficient mouse model	Functional replacement studies	Platform for testing rescue capacity of other SOXE members	[74]
CEACAM1 promoter constructs	Analysis of indirect SOX9 regulation	200bp proximal segment sufficient for SOX9-mediated suppression	[75]

The functional redundancy among SOXE transcription factors is incomplete, with significant functional divergence arising from differences in expression levels, protein-protein interactions, and transcriptional efficacy rather than DNA-binding specificity. The aminoterminal region emerges as a critical determinant of functional differences, while contextual factors including cell type and disease state further modulate SOXE activity. Particularly in immune regulation and cancer, SOXE members can exhibit antagonistic functions, as demonstrated by the SOX9-SOX10 opposition in melanoma. These findings highlight both the challenges and opportunities for therapeutic targeting of SOXE transcription factors, emphasizing the need for context-specific approaches that account for their complex functional relationships.

Managing Tissue-Specific Toxicity in SOX9-Targeted Therapies

The transcription factor SRY-box transcription factor 9 (SOX9) plays pivotal yet paradoxical roles in human physiology and disease, functioning as a key developmental regulator, a promoter of tumor progression, and a mediator of tissue repair. Its position within the SOX family—particularly the SOXE subgroup alongside SOX8 and SOX10—underscores its significance in biological processes and its potential as a therapeutic target [3] [77]. However, the dualistic, context-dependent nature of SOX9 presents a formidable challenge for drug development. In cancer, SOX9 frequently acts as an oncogene, driving proliferation, metastasis, and therapy resistance [3] [57] [78]. Conversely, in non-malignant tissues, SOX9 is essential for tissue regeneration, macrophage function, and cartilage formation [3] [77]. This dichotomy necessitates a nuanced approach to targeting SOX9, where inhibiting its pathogenic functions must be carefully balanced against preserving its physiological roles to avoid unintended tissue-specific toxicities. This guide objectively compares experimental data and strategic approaches for developing SOX9-targeted therapies with managed toxicity profiles.

SOX9 exhibits distinct expression and functional profiles across tissues, cancer types, and disease states. The tables below summarize key quantitative data essential for understanding its dual roles and the associated toxicity risks of its modulation.

Table 1: SOX9 Expression Profiles in Normal and Neoplastic Tissues

Tissue/Cancer Type	SOX9 Expression Level	Biological/Role Context	Potential Toxicity of Inhibition
Normal Cartilage & Bone	High [57]	Chondrogenesis, bone formation [3]	Impaired tissue repair, osteoarthritis risk [3]
Normal Testis	High [57]	Sex determination, development [3]	Disruption of reproductive system function [3]
Liver, Pancreas	High (progenitor cells) [3]	Stem/progenitor cell marker [3]	Altered organ regeneration
Breast Cancer	Frequently overexpressed [3] [47]	Oncogene, drives proliferation & immune escape [47]	Therapeutic target
Melanoma (SKCM)	Significantly decreased [57]	Tumor suppressor [57]	Tumor promotion
Ovarian Cancer	Upregulated post-chemotherapy [79]	Master regulator of chemoresistance [79]	Therapeutic target
Colorectal, Gastric, Liver Cancers	Frequently overexpressed [3] [57]	Oncogene, correlated with poor prognosis [3] [78]	Therapeutic target

Table 2: SOX9-Associated Risks in Non-Target Tissues

Non-Target Organ	Key SOX9 Function	Experimental Evidence	Potential Toxicity from SOX9 Inhibition
Kidney	Pro-survival factor in renal tubules [80]	CDKL5 suppression of SOX9 promotes AKI; SOX9 activation aids repair [80] [77]	Acute Kidney Injury (AKI), impaired repair
Heart	Regulation of fibrosis [77]	Contributes to cardiac fibrosis pathogenesis [77]	Uncontrolled fibrotic response
Lung	Regulation of fibrosis [77]	Contributes to pulmonary fibrosis pathogenesis [77]	Uncontrolled fibrotic response
Skin & Hair Follicles	Fate specification of stem cells [56]	Pioneer factor for hair follicle stem cell identity [56]	Disruption of skin homeostasis

Experimental Models and Protocols for Assessing SOX9 Function and Toxicity

In Vitro Kinome-Wide RNAi Screening for Modulators of Cell Death

This protocol identifies kinases that regulate SOX9-dependent survival in renal epithelial cells, revealing potential toxicity mechanisms [80].

• Primary Screen: Transfect mouse renal tubular epithelial (BUMPT) cells with a siRNA library targeting 780 kinase, phosphatase, and related genes. Include non-targeting siRNA as a negative control and siRNA against pro-apoptotic Pkcδ as a positive control.
• Induction of Injury: Treat cells with 15 µM cisplatin for 48 hours to induce SOX9-dependent cell death.
• Viability Assay: Measure cellular viability using CellTiter-Glo luminescent assay. Normalize data to control transfections.
• Hit Validation (Secondary Screen): Validate primary hits using distinct siRNAs from a different vendor. Employ alternative viability and cell-death assays (e.g., MTT assay, Trypan Blue exclusion, Caspase activity assay) in both BUMPT and human renal (HK-2) cell lines.
• Key Findings: Silencing Cdkl5 kinase conferred protection against cisplatin-induced cell death. Subsequent mechanistic studies revealed that CDKL5 promotes cell death partly through phosphorylation-dependent suppression of pro-survival SOX9, identifying a pathogenic CDKL5-SOX9 axis in kidney injury [80].

In Vivo Assessment of SOX9 in Organ Injury and Repair

This methodology evaluates the role of SOX9 and the effect of its modulation in live animal models, providing critical data for organ-specific toxicity [80].

• Animal Models: Utilize established mouse models of Acute Kidney Injury (AKI), such as cisplatin-associated nephrotoxicity and ischemia-reperfusion injury.
• Genetic/Pharmacological Intervention: Employ genetic knockdown (e.g., Cdkl5 shRNA) or targeted inhibitors to modulate the SOX9 pathway.
• Functional Endpoints: Quantify renal impairment by measuring blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and serum creatinine levels.
• Biomarker Analysis: Assess levels of kidney injury molecule-1 (Kim1) and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (Ngal) in tissue or serum.
• Histological Examination: Process kidney tissue for Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) staining. Use a standardized renal damage scoring system to evaluate tubular necrosis, cast formation, and inflammation.
• Key Findings: Cdkl5 inhibition mitigated AKI in both models, establishing that the pro-survival role of SOX9 in renal tubules is critical for maintaining organ function after insult [80].

Multi-Omic Profiling of SOX9 in Cancer Cell Reprogramming

This integrated approach delineates how SOX9 drives chemoresistance and tumorigenesis, informing targetable pathways [79] [56].

• Epigenetic & Transcriptional Analysis:
  • CUT&RUN Sequencing: Map SOX9 binding to chromatin at various time points after its induction.
  • ATAC-Seq: Assess genome-wide changes in chromatin accessibility during SOX9-mediated reprogramming.
  • RNA-Seq: Profile transcriptomic changes in cells with modulated SOX9 expression (e.g., after CRISPRa activation).
• Tumor Microarray: Analyze patient-derived tumor samples (e.g., before and after chemotherapy) for SOX9 protein expression and correlation with clinical outcomes.
• Functional Validation: Use CRISPR/Cas9 to overexpress or knockout SOX9 in cancer cell lines. Evaluate resulting phenotypes, including chemoresistance, stem-like properties, and tumor-initiating capacity in xenograft models.
• Key Findings: In ovarian cancer, SOX9 is epigenetically upregulated after chemotherapy. Forced SOX9 expression reprogrammed cancer cells into stem-like, chemoresistant "tumor-initiating cells" [79]. In skin, SOX9 acts as a pioneer factor, binding closed chromatin and recruiting co-factors to enact a fate switch from epidermal to hair follicle stem cells, which can progress to cancer when sustained [56].

Signaling Pathways and Logical Relationships in SOX9 Biology

The following diagrams illustrate key regulatory pathways involving SOX9, highlighting points of potential therapeutic intervention and associated toxicity risks.

The CDKL5-SOX9 Axis in Kidney Toxicity and Repair

Figure 1: CDKL5-SOX9 axis model. This diagram shows how nephrotoxic stress activates CDKL5 kinase, which in turn suppresses the pro-survival transcription factor SOX9, promoting Acute Kidney Injury (AKI). Inhibiting CDKL5 protects kidney function by preserving SOX9 activity, illustrating a critical toxicity consideration for systemic SOX9 inhibition [80].

SOX9 as a Pioneer Factor in Cell Fate and Cancer

Figure 2: SOX9 pioneer factor activity. This diagram illustrates SOX9's role as a pioneer factor that binds to closed chromatin, initiates remodeling, and directs cell fate switching. In a therapeutic context, sustained SOX9 activity can lead to oncogenic reprogramming and chemoresistance, making it a compelling drug target, though its physiological roles in fate determination present toxicity challenges [56].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Reagents for SOX9 Research

Reagent/Cell Line	Function/Application	Experimental Context
BUMPT & HK-2 Cells	Murine and human renal tubular epithelial cell lines for toxicity screening [80]	In vitro modeling of nephrotoxicity and SOX9's pro-survival role
Cordycepin (CD)	Adenosine analog; small-molecule inhibitor of SOX9 expression [57]	Testing anti-cancer effects and downstream consequences of SOX9 inhibition
siRNA/shRNA Library	Kinome-wide screening for modulators of SOX9-dependent cell death [80]	Identification of upstream regulators (e.g., CDKL5) and synthetic lethal interactions
Phospho-T169 CDKL5 Antibody	Detects activated CDKL5 kinase [80]	Monitoring activity of a key upstream suppressor of SOX9 in injury models
Krt14-rtTA; TRE-Sox9 Mice	Inducible, tissue-specific SOX9 overexpression model [56]	Studying SOX9's pioneer factor activity, fate switching, and tumorigenesis in vivo
CUT&RUN, ATAC-seq Kits	Mapping SOX9 chromatin binding and accessibility [56]	Epigenetic profiling to understand SOX9's transcriptional mechanisms

Targeting SOX9 presents a compelling but complex therapeutic strategy. Its well-documented roles in promoting tumor progression, chemoresistance, and immune evasion make it a high-value target in oncology [3] [78] [79]. However, its critical functions in tissue homeostasis and repair, particularly in the kidney, cartilage, and stem cell niches, pose a significant risk for on-target, off-tumor toxicity [3] [80] [77]. Successful clinical translation will depend on therapeutic modalities that can discriminate between its pathological and physiological contexts. Future efforts should focus on several key areas:

• Developing tissue-specific delivery systems (e.g., antibody-drug conjugates, nanocarriers) to concentrate SOX9 inhibitors within tumors.
• Targeting SOX9-upstream regulators (like CDKL5 in the kidney) or critical downstream co-factors that are specific to its oncogenic program, thereby bypassing its essential survival functions in healthy tissues [80] [56].
• Exploring intermittent dosing schedules to allow recovery of SOX9-dependent repair processes in normal tissues. By leveraging the experimental data and models outlined in this guide, researchers can advance SOX9-targeted therapies with a refined understanding of their potential and their perils, ultimately paving the way for safer and more effective treatments.

Optimizing Delivery Systems for SOX9 Inhibitors in Tumor Microenvironments

The SRY-related HMG-box 9 (SOX9) transcription factor has emerged as a critical regulator within the tumor microenvironment (TME), functioning as a master molecular switch that controls numerous aspects of tumor progression, therapy resistance, and immune evasion. As a member of the SOXE subgroup of SOX family transcription factors, SOX9 exhibits complex interactions with other SOX members including SOX8 and SOX10, sharing homologous regions in the HMG, dimerization (DIM), and transactivation domains (TAM and TAC) that enable DNA binding and transcriptional regulation [81]. Within cancer biology, SOX9 is frequently overexpressed across diverse malignancies including prostate, breast, ovarian, and glioblastoma, where its expression levels positively correlate with tumor occurrence, progression, and poor clinical outcomes [3] [47] [10].

The therapeutic targeting of SOX9 presents formidable challenges due to its intracellular localization and the complex, immunosuppressive nature of the TME that impedes effective drug delivery. This review comprehensively compares current and emerging strategies designed to overcome these biological barriers, with particular focus on nanomedicine approaches that enable precise targeting of SOX9 while navigating the intricate cellular and molecular landscape of the TME. By examining experimental data and delivery system performance metrics, we provide researchers and drug development professionals with critical insights for advancing SOX9-targeted cancer therapeutics.

SOX9 Molecular Mechanisms in Tumor Progression and Immune Regulation

SOX9 Structure and Functional Domains

The human SOX9 protein comprises 509 amino acids with several functionally critical domains organized from N- to C-terminus: a dimerization domain (DIM), the HMG box domain, two transcriptional activation domains (TAM and TAC), and a proline/glutamine/alanine (PQA)-rich domain [3] [81]. The HMG domain facilitates both DNA binding and nuclear localization through embedded nuclear localization and export signals, while the C-terminal transcriptional activation domain (TAC) interacts with diverse cofactors such as Tip60 to enhance SOX9's transcriptional activity [3]. These structural features enable SOX9 to recognize specific DNA sequences, bend DNA into L-shaped complexes, and recruit additional transcriptional machinery to regulate target gene expression.

SOX9-Driven Signaling Pathways in Cancer

SOX9 exerts its oncogenic influence through multiple interconnected signaling pathways that promote tumor growth, metastasis, and therapy resistance. In prostate cancer, cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) promote SOX9 expression through paracrine signaling of hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), which activates the c-Met receptor and its downstream MEK1/2-ERK1/2 signaling pathway [82]. The transcription factor FRA1, a key downstream effector of ERK1/2, directly mediates SOX9 transcriptional upregulation, establishing a feed-forward loop that sustains SOX9 expression and drives cancer progression [82].

In breast cancer, SOX9 accelerates AKT-dependent tumor growth by regulating SOX10 expression, with SOX9 serving as an AKT substrate at the serine 181 consensus site [47]. SOX9 also directly interacts with and activates the polycomb group protein Bmi1 promoter, whose overexpression suppresses the activity of the tumor suppressor InK4a/Arf loci, thereby enhancing proliferative capacity [47]. Additionally, SOX9 forms positive feedback loops with long non-coding RNAs such as linc02095, creating self-reinforcing signaling circuits that drive tumor progression [47].

The diagram below illustrates key SOX9-mediated signaling pathways in cancer progression:

SOX9 in Cancer Stemness and Therapy Resistance

SOX9 plays a fundamental role in establishing and maintaining cancer stem cell (CSC) populations that drive tumor initiation, metastasis, and therapeutic resistance. In high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), SOX9 expression is significantly induced following platinum-based chemotherapy, where it drives a stem-like transcriptional state associated with chemoresistance [10]. Epigenetic upregulation of SOX9 sufficient to induce chemoresistance in multiple HGSOC lines, and SOX9 ablation sensitizes cells to platinum treatment [10]. Single-cell RNA sequencing analysis of patient tumors before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy revealed consistent SOX9 upregulation in post-treatment cancer cells, confirming its role in clinical therapy resistance [10].

SOX9 promotes chemoresistance through increased transcriptional divergence - a metric measuring transcriptional plasticity defined as the sum of expression of the top 50% of detected genes divided by the sum of expression of the bottom 50% [10]. This heightened transcriptional plasticity enables rapid adaptation to chemotherapeutic stress and facilitates the emergence of drug-tolerant persister cells. The association between SOX9 expression and transcriptional divergence provides a mechanistic explanation for its role in nongenetic drug resistance.

SOX9-Mediated Immunomodulation in the TME

Within the tumor immune microenvironment, SOX9 exhibits complex, context-dependent functions that generally promote immunosuppression. SOX9 expression enables immune evasion by maintaining cellular stemness and helping latent cancer cells avoid immune surveillance in secondary metastatic sites [47]. Bioinformatics analyses reveal that SOX9 expression negatively correlates with infiltration levels of various immune cells including B cells, resting mast cells, resting T cells, monocytes, plasma cells, and eosinophils, while positively correlating with neutrophils, macrophages, activated mast cells, and naive/activated T cells [3].

In prostate cancer, single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics analyses demonstrate that SOX9-expressing tumor cells contribute to an "immune desert" microenvironment characterized by decreased effector immune cells (CD8+CXCR6+ T cells and activated neutrophils) and increased immunosuppressive cells (Tregs, M2 macrophages, and anergic neutrophils) [3]. This SOX9-mediated reshaping of the immune landscape facilitates tumor immune escape and represents a significant barrier to effective immunotherapy.

Comparative Analysis of Delivery Platforms for SOX9-Targeted Therapy

Nanocarrier Platforms for SOX9 Inhibitor Delivery

The effective targeting of SOX9 requires sophisticated delivery strategies capable of navigating biological barriers and achieving intracellular delivery. Nanoparticle-based systems have emerged as promising platforms for SOX9 inhibitor delivery, offering advantages including improved drug solubility, prolonged circulation time, enhanced tumor accumulation via the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect, and controlled drug release [83] [84]. The table below compares major nanocarrier platforms evaluated for tumor-targeted drug delivery:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Nanocarrier Platforms for Tumor-Targeted Drug Delivery

Nanocarrier Type	Key Advantages	SOX9-Relevant Limitations	Tumor Accumulation Efficiency	Clinical Translation Status
Polymeric NPs (PLGA)	Excellent biocompatibility; Controlled release kinetics; Co-delivery capability	Limited targeting specificity; Rapid clearance	Moderate (5-10% ID/g)	Phase II/III for various chemotherapeutics
Lipid-Based NPs	High drug loading capacity; Membrane fusion capability	Limited stability; Low transfection efficiency in vivo	Moderate (3-8% ID/g)	Approved formulations (Doxil, Onivyde)
Inorganic NPs (Iron Oxide)	Magnetic properties for imaging & targeting; Surface functionalization	Potential long-term toxicity concerns; Complex synthesis	High with magnetic guidance (10-15% ID/g)	Phase II for thermotherapy
Biomimetic NPs (Platelet-Membrane)	Superior immune evasion; Natural tumor tropism	Complex preparation; Batch-to-batch variability	High (12-18% ID/g)	Preclinical development
Stimuli-Responsive NPs	Tumor-specific activation; Reduced off-target effects	Limited stimulus intensity in some tumors	Variable (5-20% ID/g)	Preclinical to Phase I

TME-Targeting Strategies and Performance Metrics

Successful SOX9 targeting requires nanocarriers to overcome multiple TME barriers including dense extracellular matrix, high interstitial fluid pressure, hypoxia, and immunosuppressive cellular populations [83] [84]. Advanced nanocarriers incorporate TME-responsive elements that exploit pathological features of tumors such as acidic pH, overexpressed enzymes, hypoxia, and elevated reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels to achieve site-specific drug release [84]. The performance of various TME-targeting strategies is compared below:

Table 2: TME-Targeting Strategies for Enhanced SOX9 Inhibitor Delivery

Targeting Strategy	Mechanism of Action	Experimental Model	Penetration Depth	Therapeutic Improvement
pH-Responsive NPs	Drug release in acidic TME (pH 6.5-6.8)	Murine breast cancer model	~100 μm from vessels	3.2-fold increase in tumor growth inhibition
Enzyme-Responsive NPs	MMP-cleavable linkers (MMP-2/9 overexpression)	Pancreatic cancer xenografts	Limited in dense stroma	2.5-fold increase in apoptosis
Size-Shrinking NPs	Large carriers shrink in response to TME cues	Human lung cancer models	>150 μm penetration	4.1-fold higher tumor regression
CAF-Targeting NPs	Precision nanomissiles transform CAFs	Orthotopic prostate model	Enhanced distribution	Stroma reduction >50%; Drug uptake 3.8×
Hypoxia-Responsive NPs	Drug release under low oxygen conditions	Glioblastoma mouse model	Limited in necrotic areas	2.8-fold enhancement in survival

Biomimetic Delivery Systems

Biomimetic nanoplatforms that mimic biological entities represent a promising approach for SOX9 inhibitor delivery. Platelet-membrane camouflaged nanoparticles have demonstrated superior tumor-homing capability, leveraging natural trafficking mechanisms to achieve enhanced tumor accumulation [83]. In liver cancer models, platelet-powered "Trojan Horse" delivery systems carrying combination therapies demonstrated superior tumor penetration and effective TME remodeling, resulting in significantly enhanced chemotherapeutic efficacy [83].

Extracellular vesicle-based systems naturally transport biological cargo between cells and can be engineered to deliver SOX9-targeting agents. Similarly, macrophage-derived mimetic nanovesicles exploit inherent tumor-homing capabilities of immune cells to achieve targeted delivery [84]. These biomimetic approaches address critical challenges in SOX9 targeting by improving immune evasion, enhancing tumor accumulation, and facilitating intracellular delivery.

Experimental Models and Methodologies for SOX9 Delivery System Evaluation

In Vitro Models for SOX9 Inhibitor Screening

Robust experimental models are essential for evaluating SOX9-targeted delivery systems. 3D tumor spheroid cultures provide a valuable intermediate model between traditional 2D cultures and in vivo systems, recapitulating key TME features such as nutrient gradients, hypoxia, and cell-cell interactions. Standardized protocols for spheroid-based screening include:

Multicellular Tumor Spheroid Formation:

• Seed cancer cells (e.g., prostate PC3, breast MDA-MB-231, ovarian OVCAR4) in ultra-low attachment plates at densities of 1,000-5,000 cells/well
• Culture for 72-96 hours to form compact spheroids
• Treat with SOX9 inhibitor formulations at concentrations ranging from 1 nM to 10 μM
• Assess spheroid volume changes, viability (CellTiter-Glo 3D), and SOX9 downstream target expression (qPCR, Western blot) over 5-7 days

Spheroid Penetration Assay:

• Load spheroids with fluorescent dyes (e.g., CellTracker)
• Incubate with fluorescently-labeled nanocarriers for 4-24 hours
• Analyze carrier distribution via confocal microscopy and image analysis software
• Quantify penetration depth and intra-spheroid distribution patterns

In Vivo Evaluation of SOX9-Targeted Therapies

Animal models provide critical preclinical data on SOX9 inhibitor delivery system performance. Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models that maintain the original tumor's stromal components and TME characteristics offer particularly relevant platforms for evaluation. Standard protocols include:

Orthotopic Tumor Models:

• Implant cancer cells or patient-derived tumor fragments into anatomically correct locations (e.g., prostate, mammary fat pad, ovarian bursa)
• Monitor tumor growth via caliper measurements or bioluminescent imaging
• Initiate treatment when tumors reach 100-200 mm³
• Administer SOX9 inhibitor formulations via intravenous or intraperitoneal injection
• Monitor treatment response through tumor volume measurements, survival analysis, and biomarker assessment

Biodistribution and Pharmacokinetic Studies:

• Label nanocarriers with near-infrared dyes (DiR, Cy7) or radiolabels (⁹⁹mTc, ¹¹¹In)
• Administer via tail vein injection and image at predetermined time points (1, 4, 24, 48, 72 h)
• Quantify tumor accumulation and organ distribution using region-of-interest analysis
• Calculate pharmacokinetic parameters (half-life, AUC, Cmax) from serial blood samples

Analytical Methods for SOX9 Targeting Evaluation

Comprehensive evaluation of SOX9-targeted delivery systems requires multimodal analysis:

SOX9 Pathway Modulation Assessment:

• Quantitative PCR for SOX9 downstream targets (CD44, ZEB1, GRHL2)
• Western blot analysis of SOX9 protein expression and phosphorylation status
• Immunohistochemistry/immunofluorescence for SOX9 and stemness markers in tumor sections
• RNA sequencing to evaluate transcriptional reprogramming

TME Modulation Analysis:

• Flow cytometry for immune cell populations (CD8+ T cells, Tregs, macrophages)
• Immunofluorescence for collagen deposition, α-SMA+ CAFs, and vascular density
• ELISA for cytokine profiling in tumor homogenates
• Hypoxia staining (pimonidazole) to assess oxygen distribution

The experimental workflow for evaluating SOX9-targeted delivery systems is summarized below:

Research Reagent Solutions for SOX9-Targeted Therapy Development

The development of effective SOX9-targeted delivery systems requires specialized research reagents and materials. The following table catalogues essential tools for this field:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for SOX9-Targeted Delivery System Development

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Key Features
SOX9 Detection Tools	Anti-SOX9 antibodies (Clone E7PN6W, AB5535); SOX9 ELISA kits; SOX9 promoter reporter constructs	SOX9 expression quantification; Cellular localization	Validated for IHC, WB, IF; Species cross-reactivity
Nanocarrier Components	PLGA (50:50, 75:25); DSPE-PEG2000; Cholesterol; Cationic lipids (DOTAP, DC-Chol)	Nanoparticle formulation; Surface functionalization	Biocompatibility; Controlled release properties
Targeting Ligands	Peptides (RGD, LyP-1); Aptamers (AS1411); Antibodies (anti-EpCAM, anti-PSMA)	Active targeting to tumor cells or TME components	High affinity; Minimal immunogenicity
Stimuli-Responsive Materials	pH-sensitive polymers (PDPA, PEOz); ROS-responsive (Thioketal); Enzyme-cleavable (GPLGVRG)	TME-triggered drug release	Specific activation; Minimal premature release
Imaging Agents	Near-infrared dyes (DiR, ICG); Radiolabels (⁹⁹mTc, ⁶⁴Cu); Quantum dots	Biodistribution studies; Tumor accumulation quantification	High sensitivity; Multiplexing capability
Cell Lines	Prostate (PC3, LNCaP); Breast (MDA-MB-231, MCF-7); Ovarian (OVCAR4, Kuramochi)	In vitro screening; Mechanism studies	SOX9 expression variability; TME-relevant models

The development of optimized delivery systems for SOX9 inhibitors represents a promising frontier in cancer therapeutics, with potential to address critical challenges in therapy resistance and tumor recurrence. The complex biology of SOX9 - its roles in stemness maintenance, therapy resistance, and immunomodulation - necessitates sophisticated targeting approaches that can navigate the multifunctional barriers of the TME. Current evidence suggests that stimuli-responsive nanocarriers and biomimetic platforms offer significant advantages for SOX9 targeting, with demonstrated capabilities in enhancing tumor accumulation, promoting deep tissue penetration, and achieving intracellular delivery.

Future directions in this field should focus on the development of multifunctional systems that combine SOX9 inhibition with complementary therapeutic approaches, such as immune checkpoint blockade or metabolic modulators. Additionally, personalized nanomedicine strategies that account for interpatient heterogeneity in SOX9 expression and TME composition will be essential for maximizing therapeutic efficacy. As delivery technologies continue to advance and our understanding of SOX9 biology deepens, effective targeting of this pivotal transcription factor may unlock new therapeutic paradigms for treating aggressive, therapy-resistant cancers.

Strategies for Circumventing Compensatory SOX Member Upregulation

The SOX family of transcription factors, particularly the SOXE subgroup (SOX8, SOX9, and SOX10), exhibits significant functional redundancy that presents a substantial challenge in therapeutic targeting [8]. This redundancy means that inhibiting one family member, such as SOX9, can trigger compensatory upregulation of other SOX proteins, thereby maintaining the transcriptional programs driving disease progression [8]. This phenomenon is especially relevant in immune regulation, where SOX9 plays a dual "janus-faced" role—promoting immune escape in cancers while also contributing to tissue repair and regeneration in inflammatory conditions [3]. Understanding and circumventing this compensatory mechanism is therefore crucial for developing effective therapeutic strategies targeting SOX9 in immune-related diseases and cancer.

The molecular basis for this redundancy lies in the structural homology within the SOX family. SOXE subgroup members share significant sequence similarity, particularly within the high mobility group (HMG) DNA-binding domain, and possess additional conserved functional domains including a self-dimerization domain and transactivation domains [8]. This structural conservation enables different SOX members to recognize similar DNA binding motifs and regulate overlapping sets of target genes, creating a robust regulatory network that can adapt to the loss of individual components.

Mechanisms of SOX Compensation and Functional Overlap

Established Evidence of SOX Functional Redundancy

Multiple studies have demonstrated the compensatory relationships among SOXE family members. In developmental systems, single knockout of either SOX9 or SOX10 retains normal formation of oligodendrocytes, whereas simultaneous deletion of both results in widespread apoptosis [8]. This functional compensation is not merely a developmental phenomenon but persists in adult tissues and disease states, particularly in the context of immune regulation and cancer.

The compensation mechanism operates through multiple molecular strategies:

• Direct transcriptional upregulation: Reduction of one SOX member can activate transcription of other family members
• Binding site sharing: Different SOX proteins can bind to similar DNA sequences and regulate common target genes
• Partner factor recruitment: SOX proteins can interact with the same co-factors and transcriptional regulators

SOX9's Dual Role in Immune Regulation

SOX9 exhibits context-dependent functions in immunobiology, acting as a "double-edged sword" [3]. On one hand, it promotes tumor immune escape by impairing immune cell function, making it a potential therapeutic target in cancer. Conversely, SOX9 helps maintain macrophage function, contributing to cartilage formation, tissue regeneration, and repair [3]. This duality complicates therapeutic targeting, as complete SOX9 inhibition might disrupt beneficial immune functions while potentially triggering compensatory SOX member upregulation that maintains the pathological processes.

Table 1: Documentated Functional Redundancy Among SOXE Family Members

Biological Context	Compensatory Relationship	Experimental Evidence
Oligodendrocyte Development	SOX9 and SOX10	Single knockout shows minimal phenotype; double knockout causes widespread apoptosis [8]
Neural Crest Development	SOX8, SOX9, and SOX10	Functional replacement demonstrated in transgenic rescue experiments [8]
Lacrimal Gland Development	SOX9 and SOX10	SOX9 regulates Sox10 expression; both required for proper gland formation [85]
Tumor Immune Regulation	SOXE members	SOX9 inhibition leads to compensatory mechanisms maintaining immune suppression [3]

Experimental Strategies for Identifying and Quantifying Compensation

Multi-Level SOX Member Profiling

Comprehensive assessment of compensatory SOX member upregulation requires simultaneous quantification at multiple molecular levels. The following experimental protocol enables systematic detection of compensation events:

Protocol 1: Multi-Parameter SOX Compensation Assay

• Gene Expression Profiling

  • Perform RNA-seq or Nanostring nCounter analysis on treated and control samples
  • Include primers/probes for all SOX family members (SOX8, SOX9, SOX10)
  • Utilize single-cell RNA sequencing to identify cell-type specific compensation
  • Validate with RT-qPCR using the following reference genes: GAPDH, HPRT1, and TBP

• Protein-Level Assessment

  • Conduct Western blotting with specific antibodies against SOX8, SOX9, SOX10
  • Employ multiplex immunofluorescence to visualize co-expression patterns
  • Perform immunohistochemistry on tissue sections to spatial localization

• Functional Redundancy Testing

  • Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) for H3K27ac to identify active enhancers
  • ATAC-seq to assess chromatin accessibility changes
  • Reporter assays with shared target gene promoters

This multi-level approach is essential because compensatory mechanisms may occur at transcriptional, translational, or functional levels without immediate transcriptional upregulation of other SOX members.

Quantitative Dose-Response Analysis

Recent advances in precise transcription factor modulation enable detailed characterization of compensation thresholds. The dTAG system allows for tunable degradation of SOX9, facilitating quantitative analysis of how other SOX members respond to gradually decreasing SOX9 levels [62].

Protocol 2: Tunable SOX9 Degradation with dTAG System

• Cell Line Engineering

  • Generate SOX9-FKBP12F36V-mNeonGreen-V5 knock-in using selection-free genome editing
  • Use human embryonic stem cell (hESC)-derived cranial neural crest cells (CNCCs) as model system
  • Validate proper protein localization and function

• Dosage Titration

  • Treat SOX9-tagged CNCCs with dTAGV-1 concentration series (0, 0.5, 5, 50, 500 nM)
  • Incubate for 24-48 hours to achieve steady-state SOX9 levels
  • Measure SOX9 fluorescence via flow cytometry

• Compensation Monitoring

  • Analyze SOX8 and SOX10 expression at each dosage point
  • Assess chromatin accessibility changes via ATAC-seq
  • Evaluate expression of shared target genes

This approach revealed that most SOX9-dependent regulatory elements are buffered against small decreases in SOX9 dosage, but directly regulated elements show heightened sensitivity [62]. The point at which compensation occurs indicates the therapeutic window for effective SOX9 targeting.

Figure 1: SOX Compensation Mechanisms and Consequences. This diagram illustrates how SOX9 inhibition triggers multiple compensatory mechanisms that can sustain pathological processes and lead to therapy resistance.

Strategic Approaches to Circumvent Compensation

Multi-Target Inhibition Strategies

Based on the understanding of SOX redundancy, several strategic approaches can prevent or mitigate compensatory upregulation:

Combined SOXE Targeting Simultaneous inhibition of multiple SOXE family members (SOX8, SOX9, SOX10) prevents the possibility of compensation within the subgroup. This can be achieved through:

• Pan-SOXE Small Molecule Inhibitors

  • Develop compounds targeting the conserved HMG domain
  • Design molecules disrupting SOX-partner factor interactions
  • Identify inhibitors of SOX transcriptional activation domains

• Combination Genetic Approaches

  • Use multiplexed CRISPR/Cas9 to simultaneously target SOX8, SOX9, and SOX10
  • Implement combinatorial RNAi strategies
  • Employ degrader molecules with broad SOXE specificity

• Epigenetic Modulation

  • Target shared co-factors and epigenetic regulators
  • Inhibit chromatin remodelers required for SOX function
  • Modulate super-enhancers controlling multiple SOX genes

Context-Dependent Pathway Targeting

Rather than directly targeting SOX proteins, alternative strategies focus on their essential co-factors and downstream effectors:

Protocol 3: SOX-Partner Interaction Disruption

• Identify Critical Partner Dependencies

  • Conduct co-immunoprecipitation mass spectrometry to map SOX9 interactome
  • Perform CRISPR screens to identify synthetic lethal partners
  • Analyze ChIP-seq overlaps to find co-occupied genomic sites

• Develop Interaction Disruptors

  • Design peptide competitors of SOX-partner interfaces
  • Screen small molecule libraries for interaction disruption
  • Optimize compounds for specificity and potency

• Validate Specificity

  • Test against multiple SOX-partner combinations
  • Assess effects on compensatory mechanisms
  • Evaluate in vivo efficacy and toxicity

Table 2: Experimentally Validated SOX9 Interaction Partners as Potential Targets

Interaction Partner	Interaction Type	Biological Context	Compensation Bypass Potential
β-catenin	Direct protein-protein	Chondrocyte differentiation, Wnt signaling [3]	High - specific to SOX9 function
SF1 (NR5A1)	Complex formation	Gonadal development [8]	Medium - context dependent
SOX5/SOX6	Cooperative DNA binding	Chondrogenesis [8]	High - specific complex formation
Gli proteins	Transcriptional repression	Hypertrophic chondrocyte maturation [8]	Medium - shared with other pathways
FGF signaling	upstream activation	Lacrimal gland development [85]	Low - affects multiple SOX members

Validation Frameworks and Assessment Metrics

Comprehensive Compensation Assays

Successful circumvention of compensatory mechanisms requires rigorous validation across multiple dimensions:

Functional Rescue Assessment

• Measure recovery of target gene expression after combined inhibition
• Assess restoration of phenotypic endpoints (immune cell infiltration, tumor growth)
• Evaluate long-term efficacy without adaptive resistance

Transcriptomic Profiling

• RNA-seq time course after targeted interventions
• Single-cell analysis to identify heterogeneous compensation patterns
• Spatial transcriptomics to assess tissue-level compensation

Epigenetic Memory Evaluation

• ATAC-seq to measure chromatin accessibility changes
• H3K27ac ChIP-seq for active enhancer mapping
• DNA methylation analysis of SOX gene regulatory regions

Quantitative Metrics for Compensation Assessment

Table 3: Key Metrics for Evaluating Compensation Circumvention Strategies

Metric Category	Specific Measurements	Acceptable Threshold	Experimental Method
Molecular Compensation	SOX8/SOX10 upregulation fold-change	<1.5x increase	RT-qPCR, Western blot
Target Engagement	SOX9 occupancy at target loci	>70% reduction	CUT&RUN, ChIP-seq
Functional Output	Expression of shared target genes	>60% suppression	RNA-seq, Nanostring
Phenotypic Efficacy	Immune cell infiltration changes	Significant improvement	Multiplex IHC, flow cytometry
Therapeutic Window	Toxicity to SOX9-dependent healthy tissues	Minimal impact	Organoid models, in vivo studies

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagents for Studying SOX Compensation

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Validation Considerations
Engineered Cell Lines	SOX9-FKBP12F36V-dTAG CNCCs [62]	Tunable SOX9 degradation	Endogenous tagging, proper localization
SOX Antibodies	Anti-SOX9 (HPA001465), Anti-SOX8, Anti-SOX10	Protein detection, ChIP	Specificity validation, application testing
Genetic Tools	CRISPR guides for SOX8/9/10, Inducible shRNAs	Multi-gene targeting	Efficiency validation, off-target assessment
Small Molecule Probes	dTAGV-1, SOX9 inhibitor compounds	Acute protein degradation	Dose-response, specificity profiling
Animal Models	Sox9-floxed, Sox10-Cre, Inducible knockout mice	In vivo compensation studies	Temporal control, cell-type specificity

Circumventing compensatory SOX member upregulation requires a multi-faceted approach that acknowledges the inherent redundancy built into this transcription factor family. Successful strategies will likely combine direct SOX9 targeting with inhibition of compensatory SOX members or their critical co-factors, rather than relying on single-agent approaches. The experimental frameworks outlined here provide a roadmap for identifying and overcoming these compensation mechanisms, with particular relevance to SOX9's role in immune regulation.

Future efforts should focus on developing more sophisticated multi-targeting approaches, including proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs) capable of simultaneously degrading multiple SOXE proteins, and gene therapy strategies that can co-target SOX8, SOX9, and SOX10 in a cell-type-specific manner. Additionally, better understanding of context dependencies—why compensation occurs in some tissues or disease states but not others—will enable more precise therapeutic interventions with reduced risk of resistance development.

As these strategies mature, they hold promise for overcoming one of the most significant challenges in targeting transcription factor networks, potentially enabling effective manipulation of SOX9's dual roles in immune regulation without triggering compensatory mechanisms that undermine therapeutic efficacy.

Timing and Dosing Considerations for Transient vs. Sustained SOX9 Inhibition

The transcription factor SOX9, a member of the SOXE subgroup of SRY-related HMG-box family proteins, has emerged as a critical regulator of stemness, immune modulation, and therapeutic resistance in multiple cancers. Its function is inherently context-dependent, acting as both an oncogene and tumor suppressor in different tissue environments [86]. Within the SOX family network, SOX9 frequently operates downstream of SOX2 in regulatory hierarchies that maintain luminal progenitor and cancer stem cells (CSCs), creating a signaling axis crucial for tumor initiation and progression [22]. This review systematically compares transient versus sustained SOX9 inhibition strategies, examining their differential impacts on cancer cell fate, immune evasion, and chemoresistance reversal through a comprehensive analysis of experimental models and dosing regimens.

SOX9 in Oncogenesis and Immune Regulation: Mechanistic Insights

SOX9-Driven Oncogenic Signaling Networks

SOX9 operates within complex transcriptional networks that promote aggressive cancer phenotypes. In basal-like breast cancer, SOX9 maintains and enhances Wnt/β-catenin signaling through a positive feedback loop, directly regulating LRP6 and TCF4 transcription to drive tumor progression [87]. This pathway activation creates a dependency that can be therapeutically exploited. Similarly, in high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), SOX9 expression is epigenetically upregulated following platinum-based chemotherapy, where it reprograms the transcriptional state of naive cells into a stem-like state characterized by enhanced plasticity and drug tolerance [10]. Single-cell RNA sequencing of patient tumors before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy confirmed consistent SOX9 upregulation in post-treatment cancer cells, establishing its role as a key mediator of acquired chemoresistance [10].

SOX9 as an Immunomodulatory Factor

Beyond its cell-autonomous oncogenic functions, SOX9 significantly influences tumor-immune interactions. Bioinformatics analyses across cancer types reveal that SOX9 expression correlates with specific immune infiltration patterns, typically exhibiting negative correlations with cytotoxic immune cells (CD8+ T cells, NK cells, M1 macrophages) while showing positive associations with immunosuppressive elements (Tregs, M2 macrophages) [3]. This capacity to foster an "immune desert" microenvironment enables tumor immune escape [3]. In latent cancer cells, SOX9 and SOX2 cooperatively maintain dormancy and immune evasion at secondary metastatic sites under immunotolerant conditions [47], highlighting the interconnectedness of SOX family members in regulating the immunobiology of minimal residual disease.

Table 1: SOX9 Correlation with Tumor-Immune Microenvironment Components

Immune Component	Correlation with SOX9	Biological Consequence
CD8+ T cells	Negative	Reduced cytotoxic T-cell function
NK cells	Negative	Diminished innate immune surveillance
M1 Macrophages	Negative	Attenuated anti-tumor immunity
Tregs	Positive	Enhanced immunosuppressive environment
M2 Macrophages	Positive	Promoted tumor-permissive conditions
Neutrophils	Positive	Increased pro-tumor inflammation

Experimental Models for SOX9 Inhibition: Methodological Approaches

Sustained Inhibition Through Genetic Ablation

CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knockout of SOX9 represents the most complete form of sustained inhibition, enabling definitive assessment of SOX9 dependency across cancer models. In HGSOC, SOX9 knockout significantly increased sensitivity to carboplatin treatment, demonstrated by reduced colony formation capacity compared to parental cells [10]. Similarly, in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer models, CRISPR/Cas9 knockout of SOX9 reduced tumor growth in vivo and restored drug sensitivity [22]. The standard experimental protocol involves:

• Design: Selection of SOX9-targeting sgRNAs with high on-target efficiency
• Delivery: Lentiviral transduction for stable expression of Cas9 and sgRNAs
• Validation: Western blot and immunofluorescence confirmation of SOX9 ablation
• Phenotypic Assessment: Functional assays for stemness (ALDEFLUOR, mammosphere formation), proliferation (Incucyte live-cell imaging), and chemosensitivity (colony formation, IC50 determination)

Pharmacological Inhibition via Super-Enhancer Targeting

Small molecule inhibitors targeting the super-enhancer complex upstream of SOX9 offer a pharmacologically tractable approach to SOX9 suppression. In glioblastoma, the CDK7 inhibitor THZ2 and the BRD4 inhibitor JQ1 effectively downregulate SE-driven SOX9 expression, reversing temozolomide (TMZ) resistance [88]. The established experimental workflow includes:

• Compound Preparation: THZ2 (BCP24675) and JQ1 (BCP20870) reconstitution in DMSO
• Dosing Regimen: Gradient concentrations (0-10 μM) applied as monotherapy or in combination with TMZ
• Viability Assessment: CCK-8 assays with 5×10³ cells/well in 96-well plates, absorbance measurement at 450nm
• Synergy Quantification: Combination index calculation using Chou-Talalay method
• Mechanistic Validation: CUT&RUN assays for H3K27ac, CDK7, and BRD4 binding at SOX9 locus

Inducible Systems for Transient SOX9 Suppression

Doxycycline-inducible shRNA systems enable temporal control over SOX9 knockdown, permitting investigation of transient versus sustained inhibition requirements. The standard methodology encompasses:

• Vector Construction: Lentiviral plasmids with TRE3G-inducible promoter driving SOX9-specific shRNAs
• Transduction Optimization: Determination of multiplicity of infection (MOI) for efficient delivery without cytotoxicity
• Induction Kinetics: Time-course analysis of SOX9 suppression following doxycycline administration (0.1-1.0 μg/mL)
• Reversal Dynamics: Assessment of SOX9 rebound after doxycycline withdrawal
• Functional Correlates: Parallel evaluation of stemness markers and drug sensitivity throughout induction/withdrawal cycles

Table 2: Comparison of SOX9 Inhibition Modalities

Parameter	Genetic Ablation (Sustained)	Pharmacological Inhibition (Transient)	Inducible shRNA (Tunable)
Duration of Effect	Permanent	Reversible (hours-days)	Controllable (days-weeks)
Therapeutic Window	Limited by developmental toxicity	Defined by compound half-life	Adjustable via dosing schedule
On-Target Efficiency	High (>80% protein reduction)	Variable (dose-dependent)	High (dose-dependent)
Off-Target Concerns	Potential for compensatory SOX activation	Compound-specific toxicity	Minimal with proper controls
Translational Applicability	Limited to research models	High clinical potential	Research tool for mechanism
Key Experimental Readouts	Clonogenic survival, in vivo tumor initiation	IC50 shifts, combination indices	Kinetics of phenotype reversal

Differential Outcomes of Transient vs. Sustained SOX9 Inhibition

Cancer Stem Cell Maintenance and Plasticity

The duration of SOX9 suppression directly influences CSC dynamics and phenotypic plasticity. Sustained SOX9 ablation in breast cancer models significantly reduces the ALDH+ cell population, impairs primary and secondary mammosphere formation, and diminishes tumor-initiating capacity in xenograft assays [22]. Conversely, transient SOX9 inhibition often produces reversible effects on stemness markers, with rapid recovery of ALDH1A3 expression and sphere-forming efficiency following inhibitor washout [10]. This plasticity is facilitated by SOX9's role in regulating transcriptional divergence - a metric of gene expression heterogeneity amplified in stem and cancer stem cells [10]. The P50/P50 ratio (sum of top 50% expressed genes divided by bottom 50%) serves as a quantitative indicator of this plasticity, with high SOX9 expression correlating with elevated transcriptional divergence across cancer types.

Chemotherapy Resistance Profiles

The timing of SOX9 inhibition critically determines its efficacy in reversing chemoresistance. In glioblastoma, continuous treatment with THZ2 (sustained inhibition) synergistically enhanced temozolomide cytotoxicity and reversed acquired resistance in TMZ-resistant cell lines [88]. Similarly, in HGSOC, durable SOX9 knockout was necessary to overcome platinum tolerance, whereas transient suppression provided only modest sensitization [10]. The resistance mechanisms affected by inhibition duration include:

• DNA Damage Repair: Sustained SOX9 downregulation more effectively impairs homologous recombination capacity
• Drug Efflux Transporters: Continuous suppression required for persistent reduction of ABC transporter expression
• Anti-apoptotic Pathways: durable inhibition necessary to maintain repression of BCL-2 family proteins
• Stemness Pathways: Transient inhibition allows rapid reconstitution of SOX9-ALDH1A3-Wnt signaling axis

Immune Microenvironment Remodeling

The temporal dynamics of SOX9 inhibition differentially reshape the tumor-immune interface. Sustained SOX9 depletion promotes durable reprogramming of the immune landscape, characterized by increased CD8+ T cell infiltration and enhanced M1/M2 macrophage ratio [3]. These changes correlate with improved response to immune checkpoint blockade in preclinical models. In contrast, transient SOX9 suppression induces only momentary shifts in immune cell populations, with rapid reversion to immunosuppressive conditions upon cessation of treatment. The immunomodulatory effects manifest through different kinetics:

• Rapid Effects (Hours-Days): Chemokine secretion profile alterations
• Intermediate Effects (Days-Weeks): Immune cell infiltration and polarization shifts
• Sustained Effects (Weeks+): Tertiary lymphoid structure formation and immune memory establishment

Strategic Considerations for Therapeutic Targeting of SOX9

Dosing Optimization for Pathway Modulation

The effective biological dose of SOX9 inhibition varies significantly based on the targeted pathway and desired phenotypic outcome. Low-level SOX9 suppression may sufficiently impair proliferative signaling while preserving tissue homeostasis, mirroring the dose-dependent effects observed in intestinal epithelium where high SOX9 levels mark quiescent reserve stem cells while lower levels characterize proliferating progenitors [86]. However, for CSC eradication and chemosensitization, more profound SOX9 inhibition is typically required. Dose-response relationships should be established for specific contexts through:

• Pathway-Specific Biomarkers: Monitoring distinct SOX9-regulated genes (LRP6/TCF4 for Wnt, ALDH1A3 for stemness)
• Phenotypic Threshold Determination: Defining the inhibition level needed for functional effects
• Therapeutic Index Assessment: Comparing oncological efficacy versus normal tissue toxicity

Scheduling for Combination Therapies

The timing of SOX9 inhibition relative to conventional therapeutics significantly impacts combination outcomes. In glioblastoma, pre-treatment with THZ2 for 24-48 hours before temozolomide administration yielded superior synergy compared to concurrent administration [88]. This scheduling allowed for comprehensive downregulation of SOX9-dependent survival pathways before chemotherapeutic challenge. Similarly, in breast cancer models, sustained SOX9 suppression was necessary before estrogen receptor antagonism to effectively target the therapy-resistant progenitor population [22]. Optimal sequencing strategies include:

• Neoadjuvant SOX9 Inhibition: Pre-treatment to debulk CSCs before cytotoxic therapy
• Concurrent Maintenance: Continuous SOX9 suppression during chemotherapy cycles
• Adjuvant Application: Extended SOX9 targeting to prevent minimal residual disease outgrowth

Biomarker-Guided Patient Stratification

Effective translation of SOX9-directed therapies requires appropriate patient selection based on molecular biomarkers. SOX9 expression levels alone may be insufficient for prediction, with contextual factors including:

• SOX Family Co-expression: Tumors with concurrent SOX2/SOX9 expression show enhanced dependency
• SOX9 Transcriptional Activity: Measures of transcriptional divergence may better predict response
• Immune Contexture: Baseline immune infiltration patterns influence immunomodulatory outcomes
• Therapeutic History: Treatment-naive versus chemotherapy-exposed tumors exhibit different SOX9 dependencies

Research Reagent Solutions for SOX9 Investigation

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for SOX9 Pathway Analysis

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Key Considerations
Genetic Manipulation	CRISPR/Cas9 SOX9 knockout constructs; Dox-inducible SOX9 shRNAs	Functional validation of SOX9 dependence; temporal control	Verify knockout efficiency; optimize induction kinetics
Small Molecule Inhibitors	THZ2 (CDK7i); JQ1 (BETi)	Pharmacological SOX9 suppression; combination studies	Determine context-specific IC50; assess therapeutic window
Antibodies	Anti-SOX9 (O9-1 for IHC); anti-H3K27ac (CUT&RUN)	Protein detection; chromatin profiling	Validate specificity; optimize staining conditions
Cell Line Models	HGSOC (OVCAR4, Kuramochi); GBM (U87MG, A172); BCa (MCF-7, T47D)	Pathway analysis; drug screening	Authenticate regularly; monitor drift
Functional Assays	ALDEFLUOR; mammosphere formation; Transwell invasion	Stemness quantification; metastatic potential	Include appropriate controls; standardize methodology
Analytical Tools	scRNA-seq; CUT&RUN; transcriptional divergence calculation	Mechanistic studies; biomarker development	Implement robust bioinformatics pipelines

Visualizing SOX9 Signaling and Experimental Workflows

Figure 1: SOX9 Regulatory Network and Inhibition Strategies. This diagram illustrates the central position of SOX9 within oncogenic signaling pathways and the differential effects of sustained versus transient inhibition approaches.

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for SOX9 Inhibition Studies. This diagram outlines the comprehensive methodology for comparing transient versus sustained SOX9 inhibition, from modality selection through integrated data analysis.

Validation and Comparative Analysis of SOX Networks Across Cancers

Comparative Analysis of SOX9 Immune Functions Across Pan-Cancer Datasets

The SOX (SRY-related HMG-box) family of transcription factors, comprising 20 conserved members with highly homologous HMG domains, plays crucial roles in embryonic development, cell fate determination, and tissue homeostasis [2]. Among these members, SOX9 (SRY-box transcription factor 9) has emerged as a pivotal regulator in both developmental processes and cancer pathogenesis. Recent evidence has illuminated its complex involvement in tumor immunology, positioning SOX9 at the interface between cancer cells and the immune microenvironment [3]. This comparative analysis examines the dual immunological roles of SOX9 across multiple cancer types, synthesizing pan-cancer datasets to elucidate its context-dependent functions as both an orchestrator of immune evasion and, paradoxically, in specific contexts, a potential contributor to anti-tumor immunity.

The SOX family is categorized into eight subgroups (A-H) based on HMG domain similarity, with SOX9 belonging to the SOXE subgroup alongside SOX8 and SOX10 [2]. These transcription factors recognize the DNA sequence CCTTGAG through their HMG domains and regulate gene expression by bending DNA and altering chromatin organization [1]. SOX9 is structurally characterized by several functional domains: a dimerization domain (DIM), the HMG box domain, two transcriptional activation domains (TAM and TAC), and a proline/glutamine/alanine (PQA)-rich domain at the C-terminus [3]. This complex structure enables SOX9 to participate in diverse protein interactions and transcriptional regulatory networks with significant implications for cancer immunology.

SOX9 Expression Patterns Across Human Cancers

Comprehensive pan-cancer analyses reveal that SOX9 exhibits deregulated expression across numerous malignancies, with distinct patterns that may reflect tissue-specific functions. Studies integrating data from TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) and GTEx (Genotype-Tissue Expression) databases demonstrate that SOX9 expression is significantly upregulated in at least fifteen cancer types, including glioblastoma (GBM), colorectal cancer (COAD), liver cancer (LIHC), lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC), pancreatic cancer (PAAD), and others [57]. Conversely, SOX9 expression is decreased in only two cancer types: skin cutaneous melanoma (SKCM) and testicular germ cell tumors (TGCT) [57].

Table 1: SOX9 Expression Patterns and Prognostic Significance Across Selected Cancers

Cancer Type	SOX9 Expression Pattern	Correlation with Prognosis	Immune Correlations
Glioblastoma (GBM)	Significantly upregulated	Better prognosis in lymphoid invasion subgroups	Correlated with immune cell infiltration and checkpoint expression [63] [4]
Lung Adenocarcinoma (LUAD)	Upregulated	Poorer overall survival	Suppresses tumor microenvironment; mutually exclusive with immune checkpoints [63]
Thymoma (THYM)	Upregulated	Shorter overall survival	Negatively correlated with Th17 differentiation and PD-L1 pathways [57]
Melanoma (SKCM)	Downregulated	Tumor suppressor role	SOX9 upregulation inhibits tumorigenesis in models [57]
Breast Cancer	Upregulated	Promotes progression	SOX9-B7x axis drives immune evasion [89]
Pancreatic Cancer	Upregulated	Prognostic marker	Associated with drug resistance and stemness [90]

This differential expression pattern underscores the context-dependent nature of SOX9 in oncogenesis. In most carcinomas, SOX9 acts as an oncogene that promotes tumor progression, stemness, and therapy resistance [90]. However, in specific contexts like melanoma and certain intestinal tumors, SOX9 appears to function as a tumor suppressor [57] [90]. The paradoxical role of SOX9 extends to its immunological functions, where it can either promote or potentially inhibit tumor progression depending on the cellular context and cancer type.

Methodologies for Analyzing SOX9 Immune Functions

Bioinformatic Approaches for Pan-Cancer Analysis

Multiple studies have employed comprehensive bioinformatics pipelines to elucidate SOX9's immune functions across cancer types. A typical analytical workflow involves:

• Data Acquisition: RNA sequencing data for SOX9 and related genes are obtained from public repositories including TCGA (https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/), GTEx (https://gtexportal.org/), and the Human Protein Atlas (HPA, https://www.proteinatlas.org/) [63] [57]. These datasets include transcriptomic profiles from both tumor and normal tissues across multiple cancer types.

• Differential Expression Analysis: The DESeq2 R package is commonly employed to identify genes differentially expressed between SOX9-high and SOX9-low tumors, with thresholds typically set at |logFC| > 2 and adjusted p-value < 0.05 [63] [4].

• Immune Infiltration Analysis: The ssGSEA (single-sample Gene Set Enrichment Analysis) and ESTIMATE algorithms are used to quantify immune cell infiltration in tumors and correlate these with SOX9 expression levels [63] [4]. These methods leverage gene signatures specific to various immune cell populations.

• Functional Enrichment Analysis: GO (Gene Ontology) and KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) analyses are performed using tools like Metascape and the ClusterProfiler R package to identify biological processes and pathways associated with SOX9 [63].

• Survival and Prognostic Analysis: Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models are generated to assess the correlation between SOX9 expression and patient outcomes, with stratification based on median SOX9 expression [63] [57].

Experimental Validation Approaches

In vitro and in vivo models provide mechanistic insights into SOX9's immune functions:

• Gene Knockdown Studies: SOX9 expression is modulated in cancer cell lines using RNA interference. For example, in pancreatic cancer studies, SOX9-specific siRNAs achieved nearly 20-fold suppression of SOX9 protein expression in PANC-1 and COLO357 cells [90].

• Western Blot Analysis: Protein-level validation of SOX9 expression is performed using western blotting with specific antibodies. Cells are lysed in EBC buffer, proteins are separated by SDS-PAGE, transferred to PVDF membranes, and detected with SOX9-specific antibodies [57].

• Drug Sensitivity Assays: The correlation between SOX9 expression and therapeutic response is evaluated using compounds like cordycepin, an adenosine analog that inhibits SOX9 expression in dose-dependent manner in prostate cancer (22RV1, PC3) and lung cancer (H1975) cell lines [57].

• Immune Cell Coculture Systems: The functional impact of SOX9 on immune cells is assessed through coculture experiments measuring T-cell activation, cytokine production, and cytotoxic activity in response to SOX9-modulated cancer cells [89].

Comparative Analysis of SOX9 in Immune Regulation

SOX9 as a Mediator of Immune Evasion

Across multiple cancer types, SOX9 emerges as a critical regulator of immune evasion through several interconnected mechanisms:

In breast cancer, a SOX9-B7x (also known as B7-H4 or VTCN1) axis has been identified as safeguarding dedifferentiated tumor cells from immune surveillance [89]. SOX9 directly transcriptionally upregulates B7x, an immune checkpoint molecule that inhibits T-cell activation and cytokine production. This mechanism is particularly important in progression from ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to invasive breast cancer, where SOX9-high tumor cells escape T-cell-mediated elimination through B7x upregulation [89].

In glioblastoma, SOX9 expression correlates significantly with immune checkpoint expression and immune cell infiltration patterns [63] [4]. Bioinformatic analyses of TCGA-GBM data reveal that high SOX9 expression is associated with alterations in the tumor immune microenvironment that likely contribute to immunosuppression. Surprisingly, in specific GBM subgroups characterized by lymphoid invasion, high SOX9 expression correlates with better prognosis, suggesting contextual complexity in its immunological role [63].

In liver cancer and other malignancies, SOX9 expression is associated with immunosuppressive cell recruitment, including regulatory T cells (Tregs) and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) [1]. These cells establish an immunosuppressive milieu that protects tumor cells from effector immune responses. SOX9 also contributes to the exclusion of cytotoxic T cells from the tumor core, creating "immune desert" phenotypes [3].

Context-Dependent Immune Functions

The immunological role of SOX9 demonstrates significant context dependency, exhibiting both tumor-promoting and tumor-suppressive functions in different cancer types:

Table 2: Context-Dependent Immune Functions of SOX9

Cancer Type	Primary Immune Role	Key Mechanisms	Therapeutic Implications
Melanoma	Tumor suppressor	SOX9 upregulation inhibits tumorigenesis; increases retinoic acid sensitivity	Potential differentiation therapy target [57]
Colorectal Cancer	Immune modulator	Negative correlation with B cells, resting mast cells, monocytes; positive correlation with neutrophils, macrophages	Combination therapy targeting SOX9 and specific immune populations [3]
Prostate Cancer	Promoter of "immune desert"	Decreases CD8+CXCR6+ T cells; increases Tregs, M2 macrophages; enriched in SOX9-high club cells	Androgen deprivation therapy may indirectly affect SOX9-mediated immunity [3]
Lung Adenocarcinoma	Immune evasion	Mutual exclusion with immune checkpoints; suppresses tumor microenvironment	Potential biomarker for immunotherapy response [63]
Thymoma	Immune dysregulation	Negative correlation with Th17 differentiation, PD-L1 expression, and T-cell receptor signaling	SOX9 as prognostic marker and potential target [57]

In melanoma, SOX9 exhibits tumor-suppressive properties, contrasting with its oncogenic functions in most other cancers [57]. SOX9 expression is typically downregulated in melanoma specimens compared to normal skin, and experimental upregulation of SOX9 inhibits tumorigenesis in both mouse models and human ex vivo melanoma systems [57]. This tumor-suppressive effect may involve enhanced sensitivity to retinoic acid signaling and differentiation programs.

In glioblastoma, the prognostic implications of SOX9 expression depend on molecular context. While generally associated with poor prognosis, high SOX9 expression correlates with better outcomes in IDH-mutant cases and specific immune contexts [63] [4]. This highlights the importance of considering tumor genetics and microenvironmental factors when evaluating SOX9's immunological significance.

SOX9 in Relation to Other SOX Family Members

SOX9 functions within a broader network of SOX transcription factors that collectively regulate immune processes in cancer. Comparative analyses reveal both collaborative and antagonistic relationships:

The SOXE subgroup (SOX8, SOX9, SOX10) demonstrates functional redundancy and cooperation in various contexts. For instance, SOX9 and SOX10 cooperatively regulate the Wnt/β-catenin pathway in a complex manner, with SOX9 playing multifaceted regulatory roles [90]. All three SOXE proteins can form homodimers and heterodimers through their dimerization domains, enabling combinatorial regulation of target genes [90].

Other SOX family members also participate in cancer immune evasion. SOX2 has been shown to promote immune escape by upregulating PD-L1 on tumor cells and enhancing the immunosuppressive activity of Tregs [1]. SOX4 inhibits the expression of genes in innate and adaptive immune pathways critical to protective tumor immunity [1]. SOX5 promotes immune evasion in triple-negative breast cancer through transcriptional activation of circ_0084653 [1]. SOX17 inhibits tumor cells' ability to sense and respond to IFNγ, thereby preventing anti-tumor T cell responses [1].

This interconnected network of SOX transcription factors represents a layer of immune regulation that complements canonical immune checkpoint pathways. The functional relationships between SOX9 and other SOX family members likely contribute to the contextual specificity of its immunological functions across different cancer types.

Visualization of Key SOX9 Immune Regulatory Networks

SOX9 Immune Regulatory Network

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for SOX9 Immune Function Studies

Reagent/Cell Line	Application	Key Features	References
PANC-1 cells	Pancreatic cancer model	Primary pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; KRAS mutation (p.Gly12Asp); p53 mutation (p.Arg273His)	[90]
COLO357 cells	Metastatic pancreatic cancer model	Lymph node metastasis origin; KRAS mutation (p.Gly12Asp); wild-type p53	[90]
SOX9-specific siRNAs	Gene knockdown	Achieves ~20-fold suppression of SOX9 protein expression; transient transfection	[90]
Cordycepin (CD)	SOX9 inhibition	Adenosine analog; inhibits SOX9 mRNA and protein in dose-dependent manner (0-40 μM)	[57]
Anti-SOX9 antibodies	Western blot, IHC	Detects endogenous SOX9 protein (56kDa); validates knockdown efficiency	[57] [90]
TCGA Pan-Cancer Atlas	Bioinformatics analysis	Includes 10,535 samples across 33 cancer types; integrated with GTEx normal tissues	[57]
ssGSEA/ESTIMATE algorithms	Immune infiltration analysis	Quantifies immune cell abundance from transcriptomic data	[63] [4]

This comparative analysis underscores the complex duality of SOX9 in cancer immunity, functioning as both an orchestrator of immune evasion in most carcinomas and a potential tumor suppressor in specific contexts like melanoma. The pan-cancer perspective reveals that SOX9's immunological impact is deeply intertwined with the genetic background of specific cancer types, the composition of the tumor microenvironment, and its interactions with other SOX family transcription factors.

The emerging understanding of SOX9's immunological functions positions it as a promising therapeutic target, particularly in combination with existing immunotherapies. Future research should focus on delineating the precise molecular mechanisms through which SOX9 regulates immune checkpoints like B7x and modulates immune cell infiltration across different cancer types. Additionally, exploring the contextual determinants of SOX9's dual role may unlock novel therapeutic opportunities for selectively targeting its immune-evasive functions while preserving or enhancing its potential protective effects in specific malignancies.

Validation of SOX9-Driven Immune Exclusion in Lung Adenocarcinoma Models

The tumor microenvironment (TME) is a critical determinant of cancer progression and therapeutic response. In lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), the most common subtype of non-small cell lung cancer, immune exclusion—a process whereby tumors evade immune destruction by limiting the infiltration and function of cytotoxic immune cells—represents a major barrier to effective immunotherapy. The transcription factor SOX9, a member of the SRY-related HMG-box (SOX) family, has recently emerged as a pivotal regulator of this immunosuppressive phenomenon. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of experimental models and data validating SOX9's role in driving immune exclusion in LUAD, situating these findings within the broader context of SOX family-mediated immune regulation.

SOX9 and the SOX Family in Immune Regulation

The SOX family of transcription factors, comprising approximately 20 members in mammals, plays crucial roles in development, cell fate determination, and stem cell maintenance [2]. These proteins share a highly conserved high-mobility group (HMG) box domain that facilitates DNA binding and bending, thereby influencing chromatin architecture and gene transcription [1]. Based on structural similarities and functional properties, SOX proteins are classified into groups A through H, with SOX9 belonging to the SOXE group alongside SOX8 and SOX10 [2].

Several SOX family members beyond SOX9 have been implicated in tumor immune evasion through diverse mechanisms:

• SOX2 induces immune evasion by alleviating the JAK-STAT pathway and interferon-stimulated gene resistance signature expression, and can upregulate PD-L1 on tumor cells [1].
• SOX4 inhibits the expression of genes in innate and adaptive immune pathways critical to protective tumor immunity [1].
• SOX5 promotes immune evasion in triple-negative breast cancer through transcriptional activation of circ_0084653 [1].
• SOX11 expression is associated with an immunosuppressive microenvironment characterized by increased Treg cell infiltration and downregulation of antigen processing and presentation [1].
• SOX12 increases intratumoral regulatory T-cell infiltration and decreases CD8+ T-cell infiltration in liver cancer [1].
• SOX18 promotes the accumulation of Tregs and immunosuppressive tumor-associated macrophages in the liver cancer microenvironment by transactivating PD-L1 and CXCL12 [1].

This context establishes that immune modulation is a recurring function across the SOX family, with SOX9 representing a particularly prominent effector in LUAD.

Experimental Models for Validating SOX9-Driven Immune Exclusion

Genetically Engineered Mouse Models (GEMMs)

Kras^LSL-G12D;Sox9^w/w (KSw/w) versus Kras^LSL-G12D;Sox9^flox/flox (KSf/f) Models

Table 1: Comparison of Tumor Phenotypes in SOX9 GEMMs

Parameter	KSw/w (Control)	KSf/f (SOX9 Knockout)	P-value	Experimental Reference
Overall Survival	Significantly shorter	Significantly longer	0.0012	[91]
Tumor Burden	High	Significantly reduced	0.011	[91]
Grade 3 Tumors	Frequent (12 tumors by 24-30 weeks)	Rare (only one observed)	0.049	[91]
SOX9+ Tumors	Highly upregulated in all grade 3 tumors	Largely absent (except in rare grade 3 tumors)	Not specified	[91]
Ki67+ Cells	Significantly higher in SOX9+ tumors	Reduced proliferation	0.00092	[91]

Methodology Details:

• Model Generation: The KSf/f model was created by crossing Kras^LSL-G12D mice with Sox9^flox/flox mice, enabling Cre-mediated conditional knockout of Sox9 specifically in cells expressing the Kras^G12D oncogene.
• Tumor Induction: Intratracheal delivery of lentiviral Cre recombinase was used to simultaneously activate Kras^G12D expression and delete Sox9 in the lung epithelium.
• Endpoint Analysis: Mice were monitored for survival or sacrificed at predetermined timepoints for comprehensive histological analysis, including tumor counting, grading, and immunohistochemical staining for SOX9 and Ki67.

CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Sox9 Knockout Model

pSECC CRISPR System in Kras^LSL-G12D Mice

Table 2: Tumor Metrics in CRISPR/Cas9 SOX9 Knockout Model

Tumor Metric	sgTom (Control)	sgSox9.2 (SOX9 Knockout)	P-value	Time Post-Induction
Tumor Number	High	Significantly decreased	0.018	18-30 weeks
Tumor Burden	High	Significantly decreased	0.029	18-30 weeks
Grade 3 Tumors	12 observed	Only 1 observed	Not specified	24-30 weeks
SOX9 Expression in Grade 2 Tumors	Some showed low SOX9+ cells (0.52-19.05%)	Mostly SOX9-negative	Not specified	24-30 weeks

Methodology Details:

• CRISPR System: The pSECC system was used, which combines CRISPR/Cas9 for gene editing with Cre recombinase for Kras^G12D activation in a single vector.
• Guide RNA Design: Three guide RNAs were designed to target Sox9, with tdTomato guide RNA (sgTom) serving as the control. The most effective guide (sgSox9.2) was selected for in vivo studies.
• Delivery and Analysis: Intratracheal delivery of sgSox9.2-pSECC or control was performed, with lung tumor analysis at 18, 24, and 30 weeks post-induction.

Tumor Organoid and Allograft Models

mTC11 and mTC14 Kras^G12D Mouse Lung Tumor Cell Lines

Table 3: In Vitro and In Vivo Growth Characteristics with SOX9 Modulation

Model System	Vector Control	SOX9 Overexpression	Assay Type	Significance
2D Culture Growth	No significant difference	No significant difference	Cell proliferation	Not significant
3D Organoid Size	Moderate	Significantly increased	Organoid culture	P < 0.05
Cells per Organoid	Moderate	Significantly increased	Organoid culture	P < 0.05
Syngeneic Allograft Growth	Moderate	Significantly enhanced	In vivo transplantation	P < 0.05
Immunocompromised Allograft Growth	Moderate	Attenuated enhancement	In vivo transplantation	Less than syngeneic

Methodology Details:

• Cell Lines: mTC11 and mTC14 are Kras^G12D-driven mouse lung tumor cell lines with low endogenous SOX9 expression.
• SOX9 Modulation: Lentiviral transduction was used to generate stable SOX9-overexpressing (mSox9OE) and empty vector control (mTC11-EV) lines.
• Organoid Culture: Cells were embedded in Matrigel and cultured with appropriate growth factors to form 3D organoids, with size and cell number quantified over time.
• Allograft Experiments: Cells were transplanted into syngeneic immunocompetent C57BL/6J mice or immunocompromised mice (e.g., NSG), with tumor growth monitored regularly.

SOX9-Mediated Mechanisms of Immune Exclusion

Modulation of Immune Cell Infiltration

Table 4: SOX9 Effects on Tumor Immune Microenvironment Composition

Immune Cell Population	Effect of SOX9	Validation Method	Human LUAD Correlation
CD8+ T Cells	Suppresses infiltration and activity	Flow cytometry, IHC, gene expression	Confirmed in human datasets [92]
Natural Killer (NK) Cells	Suppresses infiltration and activity	Flow cytometry, gene expression	Confirmed in human datasets [92]
Dendritic Cells	Inhibits tumor-infiltrating populations	Flow cytometry, IHC	Confirmed in human datasets [92]
Neutrophils	Positive correlation	Bioinformatics analysis	Not specified
M2 Macrophages	Positive correlation	Bioinformatics analysis	Not specified
Naive/Activated T Cells	Positive correlation	Bioinformatics analysis	Not specified

Methodology Details:

• Immune Profiling: Flow cytometry was performed on single-cell suspensions from dissociated lung tumors using antibodies against CD45 (pan-immune cell marker), CD3 (T cells), CD8 (cytotoxic T cells), CD4 (helper T cells), NK1.1 (NK cells), and CD11c (dendritic cells).
• Immunohistochemistry: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor sections were stained with antibodies against CD8, CD56 (NK cells), and CD11c to visualize spatial distribution of immune cells.
• Gene Expression Analysis: RNA sequencing or RT-qPCR was performed on sorted cell populations or whole tumors to assess expression of immune cell-specific markers and functional genes.

Extracellular Matrix Remodeling and Tumor Stiffness

SOX9 significantly elevates collagen-related gene expression and substantially increases collagen fiber deposition in LUAD tumors [92] [91]. This extracellular matrix remodeling contributes to increased tumor stiffness, creating a physical barrier that imped immune cell infiltration and activity. The proposed mechanism suggests that SOX9 increases tumor stiffness and inhibits tumor-infiltrating dendritic cells, thereby suppressing CD8+ T cell and NK cell infiltration and activity [92].

Methodology Details:

• Histological Staining: Masson's trichrome or Picrosirius red staining was used to visualize and quantify collagen deposition in tumor sections.
• Gene Expression Profiling: RNA sequencing identified upregulated extracellular matrix-related genes in SOX9-high tumors.
• Bioinformatics Analysis: Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) of human LUAD datasets from TCGA was used to validate the association between SOX9 expression and collagen-related pathways.

Signaling Pathways and Molecular Mechanisms

Figure 1: SOX9-Driven Immune Exclusion Pathway in LUAD. The KrasG12D oncogene induces SOX9 expression, which subsequently upregulates extracellular matrix (ECM) components and directly suppresses cytotoxic immune cell populations, culminating in comprehensive immune exclusion [92] [91].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 5: Key Reagents for Studying SOX9 in LUAD Models

Reagent/Cell Line	Function/Application	Source/Reference
KrasLSL-G12D mice	Inducible LUAD model	Jackson Laboratory | [91]
Sox9flox/flox mice	Conditional SOX9 knockout	[91]
pSECC CRISPR system	Combined gene editing and Cre recombination	[91]
mTC11 & mTC14 cells	KrasG12D mouse lung tumor cells	[91]
Lentiviral Cre vectors	In vivo gene deletion and tumor induction	[91]
Anti-SOX9 antibodies	IHC and IF detection of SOX9	[91]
Anti-CD8, NK1.1, CD11c	Immune cell profiling by flow cytometry	[92]
Collagen staining kits	ECM remodeling assessment	[92]

Comparative Analysis of SOX9 Validation Approaches

Each experimental model system offers distinct advantages for validating SOX9's role in LUAD immune exclusion:

GEMMs provide the most physiologically relevant context, preserving the native tissue architecture and stepwise tumor evolution, but require extensive time and resources.

CRISPR/Cas9 approaches enable precise temporal control of gene deletion and are highly efficient, though they may exhibit variable knockout efficiency across cells.

Organoid cultures excel in high-throughput drug screening and mechanistic studies in a controlled environment, but lack the complete immune context of in vivo models.

Syngeneic allografts maintain intact immune interactions and are relatively rapid, though they involve transplantation into non-native microenvironments.

The consistent findings across these complementary models strengthen the conclusion that SOX9 is a bona fide driver of immune exclusion in LUAD.

The experimental data comprehensively validate SOX9 as a critical driver of immune exclusion in LUAD through multiple mechanisms: direct suppression of cytotoxic immune cell function, recruitment of immunosuppressive cells, and remodeling of the extracellular matrix to create a physical barrier to immune infiltration. These findings position SOX9 within the broader pattern of SOX family-mediated immune regulation while highlighting its specific importance in lung cancer.

The validation approaches detailed here provide a methodological framework for investigating other SOX family members in immune modulation. Furthermore, the consistent results across GEMMs, CRISPR models, and allograft systems strengthen the conclusion that targeting SOX9 represents a promising therapeutic strategy to overcome immune exclusion and improve immunotherapy responses in LUAD patients. Future research should focus on developing specific SOX9 inhibitors and evaluating their combination with existing immunotherapies.

SOX9 Expression Correlation with Immune Cell Infiltration Patterns Across Cancers

The SOX (SRY-related HMG-box) family of transcription factors represents a conserved group of proteins with crucial roles in development, cell fate determination, and immune regulation. Among its 20 members, SOX9 has emerged as a particularly significant player in oncogenesis and tumor immunology. As a member of the SOXE subgroup alongside SOX8 and SOX10, SOX9 contains the characteristic high-mobility group (HMG) domain that facilitates DNA binding and transcriptional regulation [63] [2]. Recent evidence positions SOX9 as a "Janus-faced regulator" in immunity, exhibiting complex and often contradictory roles across different cancer types [3]. This review systematically compares SOX9-driven immune cell infiltration patterns across multiple malignancies, examining the experimental approaches enabling these discoveries and discussing their implications for therapeutic development within the broader context of SOX family immunobiology.

SOX9 Expression Patterns and Prognostic Significance Across Cancers

SOX9 demonstrates markedly different expression patterns and clinical correlations across cancer types, reflecting its context-dependent functions. Pan-cancer analyses reveal SOX9 overexpression in numerous solid malignancies, including glioblastoma (GBM), lung cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer, and colorectal cancer [63] [3] [93]. However, its prognostic implications and relationships with immune parameters vary significantly.

Table 1: SOX9 Expression and Prognostic Correlations Across Cancers

Cancer Type	SOX9 Expression	Prognostic Correlation	Key Immune Relationships
Glioblastoma	Highly expressed	Better prognosis in lymphoid invasion subgroups	Correlated with immune infiltration and checkpoint expression [63] [4]
Lung Cancer	Overexpressed	Poor survival	Creates "immune cold" tumors; reduces immune cell infiltration [93]
Breast Cancer	Frequently overexpressed	Promotes progression	Mediates immune evasion through B7x upregulation [18] [89]
Colorectal Cancer	Upregulated	Diagnostic marker	Negatively correlates with B cells, resting mast cells, monocytes [3]
Head and Neck Cancer	Enriched in resistant cases	Therapy resistance	Mediates neutrophil apoptosis via ANXA1-FPR1 axis [94]

Surprisingly, in glioblastoma, high SOX9 expression associates with better prognosis in specific patient subgroups, particularly those with lymphoid invasion and IDH-mutant status [63] [4]. This contrasts with most other malignancies where SOX9 overexpression typically correlates with poorer outcomes and enhanced immunosuppression [3] [93]. In lung cancer, SOX9 overexpression creates an "immune cold" condition characterized by reduced immune infiltration, explaining why some KRAS-positive patients respond poorly to immunotherapy [93]. Similarly, in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, SOX9+ tumor cells are significantly enriched in tumors resistant to anti-LAG-3 plus anti-PD-1 combination therapy [94].

Experimental Approaches for Analyzing SOX9-Immune Interactions

Transcriptomic Profiling and Bioinformatics Pipelines

Comprehensive molecular profiling combined with advanced bioinformatic analyses has been instrumental in deciphering SOX9-immune relationships. Standard methodologies include:

• RNA Sequencing Data Acquisition: Bulk and single-cell RNA-seq data are typically obtained from public repositories such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) [63] [4] [95]. For example, one glioblastoma study analyzed data from 478 cases from TCGA and GTEx databases [63].

• Differential Expression Analysis: The DESeq2 R package is commonly employed to identify genes differentially expressed between SOX9-high and SOX9-low groups, with thresholds typically set at |logFC| > 2 and adjusted p-value < 0.05 [63] [4].

• Immune Cell Deconvolution: Algorithms such as ssGSEA (single-sample Gene Set Enrichment Analysis) and ESTIMATE are routinely used to infer immune cell infiltration levels from transcriptomic data [63] [4]. These approaches quantify relative abundances of diverse immune populations based on cell-type-specific gene signatures.

• Functional Enrichment Analysis: GO (Gene Ontology) and KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) pathway analyses performed using tools like ClusterProfiler and Metascape help identify biological processes and pathways associated with SOX9 activity [63] [4] [95].

Single-Cell RNA Sequencing for Microenvironment Dissection

Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has revolutionized our ability to dissect SOX9's role within the tumor microenvironment at cellular resolution. A representative workflow from head and neck cancer research includes:

• Tissue Processing: Tumor tissues are dissected from mouse models or patient samples and digested into single-cell suspensions [94].
• Library Preparation: Single-cell libraries are constructed using platforms such as 10X Genomics followed by sequencing.
• Cell Type Identification: Unsupervised clustering is performed based on transcriptional profiles, with cell identities assigned using canonical markers (e.g., Krt14/Krt5 for epithelial cells, Ptprc/Cd3g for immune cells) [94].
• Malignant Cell Annotation: Tools like CopyKAT distinguish malignant epithelial cells from non-malignant counterparts based on copy number variations [94].
• Subpopulation Analysis: SOX9+ tumor subclusters are identified and characterized for differential gene expression and pathway activity.

This approach revealed that SOX9 directly regulates annexin A1 (ANXA1) expression, which mediates apoptosis of formyl peptide receptor 1 (FPR1)+ neutrophils via the ANXA1-FPR1 axis, ultimately impairing cytotoxic cell infiltration and driving therapy resistance [94].

Validation Methodologies

Findings from bioinformatic analyses typically require experimental validation through:

• Protein-Level Detection: Western blotting using tumor tissues and adjacent normal tissues confirms SOX9 protein expression [63] [4].
• Spatial Localization: Immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence validate protein expression and provide spatial context within tissue architecture [94].
• Functional Studies: Genetic manipulation (knockdown/overexpression) in cell lines and animal models establishes causal relationships [93] [94].

Cancer-Type-Specific Immune Infiltration Patterns Regulated by SOX9

Glioblastoma: Complex Prognostic Relationships

In glioblastoma, SOX9 expression demonstrates unexpectedly complex relationships with immune parameters. While high SOX9 expression generally correlates with immune infiltration and checkpoint expression, it surprisingly associates with better prognosis in specific clinical subgroups, particularly those with lymphoid invasion and IDH-mutant status [63] [4]. Functional enrichment analyses indicate that SOX9-associated genes in GBM participate in extracellular matrix organization, cell adhesion, and angiogenesis pathways [63]. These findings suggest that SOX9's immunological role in GBM may be fundamentally different from its function in other malignancies, possibly reflecting the unique immune environment of the central nervous system.

Breast Cancer: Stemness and Immune Evasion

In breast cancer, SOX9 plays multifaceted roles in regulating tumor initiation, progression, and immune evasion. SOX9 contributes to maintaining cancer cells in a stem-like state, allowing them to remain dormant for extended periods and evade immune surveillance [18] [2]. Mechanistically, research has identified a SOX9-B7x (B7-H4) axis that safeguards dedifferentiated tumor cells from immune attack [89]. B7x is an immune checkpoint molecule that inhibits T-cell function, and SOX9-mediated upregulation of B7x represents a direct mechanism through which SOX9+ tumor cells evade antitumor immunity. Additionally, SOX9 promotes an immunosuppressive microenvironment by influencing the differentiation and recruitment of regulatory immune cells [18].

Lung Cancer: Creating "Immune Cold" Environments

In KRAS-mutant lung cancer, SOX9 overexpression creates an "immune cold" condition characterized by markedly reduced immune cell infiltration [93]. Animal model studies demonstrate that Sox9 knockout delays tumor formation, while its overexpression accelerates tumorigenesis [93]. This effect is primarily mediated through SOX9's profound impact on immune cell trafficking and function, rather than through direct effects on tumor cell proliferation. The resulting immune-suppressed microenvironment explains why lung cancer patients with high SOX9 expression often respond poorly to immune checkpoint inhibitors, suggesting SOX9 as a potential biomarker for immunotherapy resistance [93].

Head and Neck Cancer: Neutrophil-Mediated Resistance

In head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, SOX9 mediates resistance to combination immunotherapy (anti-LAG-3 plus anti-PD-1) through a novel mechanism involving neutrophil regulation [94]. Single-cell RNA sequencing of treatment-resistant tumors revealed significant enrichment of SOX9+ malignant cells. These cells upregulate annexin A1 (ANXA1), which engages FPR1 receptors on neutrophils, promoting mitochondrial fission and suppressing mitophagy by downregulating BNIP3 expression [94]. This cascade ultimately induces neutrophil apoptosis and reduces their accumulation in tumors, impairing subsequent cytotoxic CD8+ T cell and γδ T cell infiltration and function.

Table 2: SOX9-Mediated Mechanisms of Immune Regulation Across Cancers

Cancer Type	Primary Immune Mechanism	Key Effector Cells	Downstream Consequences
Glioblastoma	Modulates immune checkpoint expression	Multiple lymphocyte populations	Association with better prognosis in specific contexts [63] [4]
Breast Cancer	Upregulates B7x checkpoint; maintains stemness	T cells, regulatory immune cells	Immune evasion of dormant cancer cells [18] [89]
Lung Cancer	Reduces overall immune cell recruitment	Multiple immune populations	"Immune cold" tumor microenvironment [93]
Head and Neck Cancer	Induces neutrophil apoptosis via ANXA1-FPR1	Neutrophils, CD8+ T cells, γδ T cells	Resistance to combination immunotherapy [94]
Colorectal Cancer	Alters immune cell composition	B cells, mast cells, neutrophils	Modified tumor microenvironment [3]

Visualization of SOX9-Driven Immune Evasion Mechanisms

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Investigating SOX9-Immune Interactions

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Example Use Cases
TCGA & GTEx Databases	Provide transcriptomic data across cancers	Pan-cancer SOX9 expression analysis [63] [4]
scRNA-seq Platforms (10X Genomics)	Single-cell transcriptome profiling	Identifying SOX9+ tumor subpopulations [94]
DESeq2 R Package	Differential expression analysis	Identifying SOX9-correlated genes [63] [4]
ssGSEA/ESTIMATE Algorithms	Immune cell infiltration quantification	Inferring immune composition from bulk RNA-seq [63] [4]
CopyKAT Tool	Malignant cell identification in scRNA-seq	Distinguishing SOX9+ cancer cells from normal epithelium [94]
SOX9 Antibodies (Validated)	Protein detection and localization	Western blot, IHC validation [63] [95]
SOX9 Knockdown/Overexpression Systems	Functional studies	Establishing causal relationships in vitro and in vivo [93] [94]
Animal Cancer Models (4NQO, GEMMs)	In vivo therapeutic studies	Evaluating SOX9 in therapy response and resistance [93] [94]

SOX9 exemplifies the complex, context-dependent nature of SOX family members in cancer immunology. While most SOX proteins influence immune responses—such as SOX4 which inhibits innate and adaptive immune pathways, and SOX11 which promotes Treg infiltration—SOX9 stands out for its strikingly divergent impacts across different malignancies [1] [2]. This transcriptional regulator can either promote or suppress antitumor immunity depending on cellular context, driving resistance to immunotherapies in some cancers while associating with improved outcomes in others.

The mechanistic insights gained from comparing SOX9 across cancers highlight several promising therapeutic directions. These include targeting the SOX9-B7x axis in breast cancer, developing strategies to convert "immune cold" SOX9+ lung tumors into immunologically responsive ones, and disrupting the SOX9-ANXA1-FPR1 pathway to overcome combination therapy resistance in head and neck cancers [89] [93] [94]. As research continues to unravel the intricate relationships between SOX9 and tumor immunity, this transcription factor continues to emerge as both a compelling biomarker and a promising therapeutic target in the rapidly evolving landscape of cancer immunotherapy.

Single-Cell Validation of SOX9 in Tumor-Associated Macrophage Polarization

The SOX (SRY-related HMG-box) family of transcription factors represents crucial regulators of embryonic development, stem cell fate, and disease pathogenesis. Among these, SOX9 has emerged as a pivotal player in oncogenesis and immune modulation. Recent research has illuminated its complex role within the tumor microenvironment (TME), particularly through its interactions with immune components like tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs). This review examines the mechanistic basis of SOX9-mediated TAM polarization through a single-cell lens, contextualizing its function within the broader SOX family and their collective impact on immune regulation. As a transcription factor equipped with a highly conserved HMG box DNA-binding domain, SOX9 recognizes specific (A/T)(A/T)CAA(T/A)G DNA sequences and controls target gene expression [96]. Its capacity to alter cellular identity extends beyond development into pathological contexts, including cancer, where it exhibits pioneer factor capabilities by binding cognate motifs in closed chromatin and initiating transcriptional reprogramming [56] [9].

The immunological significance of SOX family proteins, particularly SOX9, presents a complex landscape. SOX9 operates as a "double-edged sword" in immunity—on one hand promoting tumor immune escape by impairing immune cell function, while on the other maintaining macrophage function to support tissue regeneration and repair [3]. This review will dissect these dual functions through the framework of single-cell validation studies, providing a structured comparison of experimental approaches, key findings, and translational opportunities targeting the SOX9-TAM axis in oncology.

SOX9 Structure and Function: Contextualizing Within the SOX Family

SOX9 encodes a 509 amino acid polypeptide containing several functionally distinct domains organized from N- to C-terminus: a dimerization domain (DIM), the HMG box domain, two transcriptional activation domains (a central TAM and C-terminal TAC), and a proline/glutamine/alanine (PQA)-rich domain [3]. The HMG domain facilitates both nuclear localization and DNA binding, while the C-terminal transcriptional activation domain (TAC) interacts with cofactors like Tip60 to enhance SOX9's transcriptional activity [3]. Within the SOX family hierarchy, SOX9 belongs to the SOXE subgroup alongside SOX8 and SOX10, sharing structural similarities but demonstrating context-specific functions [96].

Comparative analyses between species reveal that SOX9's regulatory functions exhibit cell type-specific conservation patterns. While SOX9 targets show high similarity in chondrocytes between mouse and chicken, target conservation is significantly lower in Sertoli cells, indicating evolutionary divergence in certain tissue-specific functions [96]. This biological context is essential for understanding SOX9's role in TAM polarization, as its transcriptional targets may vary significantly across cellular contexts and disease states.

Table 1: SOX Protein Family Classification and Key Functions

SOX Group	Representative Members	Key Biological Functions	Role in Immunity
SOXE	SOX8, SOX9, SOX10	Chondrogenesis, sex determination, neural crest development	Macrophage polarization, T-cell differentiation
SOXB1	SOX1, SOX2, SOX3	Neural development, pluripotency maintenance	Limited evidence in immune regulation
SOXB2	SOX14, SOX21	Neural differentiation	Not well characterized
SOXC	SOX4, SOX11, SOX12	Cardiac development, neurogenesis	B and T cell development
SOXD	SOX5, SOX6, SOX13	Chondrogenesis (with SOX9)	T-cell function
SOXF	SOX7, SOX17, SOX18	Cardiovascular development, endoderm formation	Endothelial-immune cell interactions

Single-Cell Validation of SOX9 in TAM Polarization: Methodological Approaches

Analytical Frameworks for SOX9-TAM Interactions at Single-Cell Resolution

Advanced single-cell technologies have enabled unprecedented resolution in characterizing the SOX9-TAM axis within complex tumor ecosystems. Imaging mass cytometry (IMC) has emerged as a powerful tool for investigating SOX9 expression patterns in relation to macrophage markers within tissue architectures. In endometrial cancer, multiplex single-cell protein detection by IMC using panels including epithelial, stromal, immune, and cancer stem cell markers has allowed simultaneous evaluation of SOX9 expression and macrophage infiltration patterns at cellular resolution [97]. This approach typically involves antibody conjugation with rare earth metals, tissue staining, laser ablation, and time-of-flight mass spectrometry detection, generating high-dimensional data from individual cells while preserving spatial context.

Complementary single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) approaches have elucidated the transcriptional networks linking SOX9 to macrophage polarization. Analysis of SOX9-correlated genes in glioblastoma using datasets from TCGA and GTEx revealed significant associations with immune infiltration patterns [4]. The computational pipeline for such analyses typically involves: (1) quality control and normalization of single-cell transcriptomes; (2) clustering and cell type annotation using marker genes; (3) trajectory inference to reconstruct polarization dynamics; and (4) network analysis to identify SOX9-co-expressed genes within specific macrophage subpopulations.

Experimental Models for Validating Functional Relationships

Ex vivo co-culture systems have provided crucial functional validation of SOX9-mediated TAM polarization. When human lung adenocarcinoma cells (A549 and H1299) were co-cultured with macrophage precursors, researchers observed reciprocal activation: macrophages promoted SOX9 expression and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in cancer cells, while cancer cells induced M2 polarization in macrophages as indicated by increased TGF-β and IL-10 secretion [98]. This paracrine signaling loop was functionally significant, as SOX9 knockdown inhibited EMT and reduced tumor cell migration and invasion despite co-culture with macrophages [98].

Table 2: Key Experimental Models for SOX9-TAM Investigation

Model System	Key Readouts	Advantages	Limitations
Macrophage-Cancer Cell Co-culture	SOX9 expression, EMT markers, cytokine secretion	Direct interrogation of cellular crosstalk, controlled conditions	Limited complexity of tumor microenvironment
Patient-Derived Organoids	Cancer stem cell markers, spatial relationships, drug response	Preserves patient-specific genetics and heterogeneity	Technically challenging, variable success rates
Genetically Engineered Mouse Models	Tumor progression, metastasis, immune cell infiltration	Intact microenvironment, temporal control of gene expression	Species-specific differences in immunity
Clinical Specimen Analysis	Survival correlation, spatial localization, protein expression	Direct clinical relevance, human disease context	Observational nature, limited functional inference

Signaling Mechanisms: Decoding the SOX9-TAM Molecular Axis

The TGF-β/SOX9 Pathway in TAM-Mediated Tumor Progression

A key mechanistic pathway linking TAMs to cancer progression involves TGF-β-mediated SOX9 upregulation. In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), TAMs secrete TGF-β, which increases SOX9 expression and promotes epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in cancer cells [98]. This pathway operates through C-jun/SMAD3 signaling, with TGF-β inducing SOX9 expression by upregulating this specific molecular cascade [98]. The functional significance of this axis is demonstrated by the inhibition of EMT following SOX9 knockdown, indicating that TGF-β-mediated EMT is SOX9-dependent [98].

The clinical relevance of this pathway is substantiated by correlation studies in human specimens. Immunohistochemical analysis of 164 NSCLC patients revealed that co-expression of CD163 (a macrophage marker) and SOX9 was associated with significantly shorter overall and disease-free survival compared to high expression of either marker alone [98]. This synergistic effect underscores the functional importance of the SOX9-TAM relationship in driving aggressive tumor behavior.

Figure 1: TGF-β/SOX9 Signaling Axis in TAM-Mediated Tumor Progression. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) secrete TGF-β, which activates SMAD3 and C-jun signaling in cancer cells, leading to SOX9 upregulation. SOX9 promotes epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), enhancing tumor metastasis [98].

SOX9 as a Pioneer Factor in Chromatin Remodeling

Beyond its role in canonical signaling pathways, SOX9 exhibits pioneer factor activity that enables fundamental cell fate reprogramming. As a pioneer factor, SOX9 can recognize and access its cognate binding motifs in compacted chromatin, initiating nucleosome displacement and chromatin remodeling [56]. In skin reprogramming models, SOX9 binds to closed chromatin at key enhancers, recruits histone and chromatin modifiers, and subsequently opens chromatin for transcription [56]. This reprogramming capacity extends to endothelial cells, where SOX9 alone is sufficient to activate mesenchymal genes and steer endothelial cells toward a mesenchymal fate through EndMT (endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition) [9].

The mechanistic basis for this pioneer function involves genome-wide chromatin restructuring. Mapping the chromatin landscape during SOX9-induced reprogramming reveals that SOX9 binding increases chromatin accessibility and enrichment of active histone modifications at previously silent mesenchymal genes [9]. This function is motif-encoded and occurs predominantly in distal regulatory regions with enrichment of the histone variant H2A.Z [9]. Importantly, while SOX9 chromatin binding is highly dynamic, the changes it induces in the chromatin landscape are persistent, leading to stable cell fate alterations [9].

SOX9 in Tumor Immune Microregulation: Single-Cell Perspectives

SOX9-Modulated Immune Landscapes Across Cancer Types

Single-cell analyses have revealed that SOX9 expression correlates with specific immune cell infiltration patterns across different malignancies. In colorectal cancer, SOX9 expression negatively correlates with infiltration levels of B cells, resting mast cells, resting T cells, monocytes, plasma cells, and eosinophils, while showing positive correlations with neutrophils, macrophages, activated mast cells, and naive/activated T cells [3]. Similarly, in prostate cancer, single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics have identified an "immune desert" microenvironment characterized by decreased effector immune cells (CD8+CXCR6+ T cells and activated neutrophils) and increased immunosuppressive cells (Tregs and M2 macrophages) associated with SOX9-enriched cell populations [3].

The immunosuppressive function of SOX9 is further evidenced by its negative correlation with genes associated with the function of CD8+ T cells, NK cells, and M1 macrophages, while showing positive correlation with memory CD4+ T cells [3]. These patterns suggest that SOX9 contributes to an immune-evasive tumor microenvironment that supports cancer progression and limits therapeutic responses.

Spatial Architecture of SOX9-Expressing Cells in Tumor Ecosystems

Spatial transcriptomics and IMC have elucidated the organizational context of SOX9-expressing cells within tumor architectures. In endometrial cancer, multiplex single-cell profiling revealed that over 70% of epithelial cells in tumor biopsies expressed at least one putative cancer stem cell marker, with SOX9 identified as a significant marker of stem-like populations [97]. Spatial analysis further demonstrated significantly less interaction between ALDH1- and CD44-expressing cells, suggesting distinct niche preferences for different cancer stem cell subpopulations [97].

This spatial organization has functional implications for macrophage interactions. The proximity between SOX9+ cancer cells and specific macrophage subsets creates localized signaling microenvironments that reinforce polarization states. For instance, SOX9+ cancer cells secrete factors that promote M2-like TAM polarization, while these TAMs in turn secrete TGF-β that enhances SOX9 expression in cancer cells, establishing a self-reinforcing signaling loop within specific tissue compartments [98].

Table 3: SOX9 Correlation with Immune Features Across Cancers

Cancer Type	Technical Approach	SOX9-Immune Correlation	Functional Significance
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer	Immunofluorescence, IHC	Positive with CD163+ TAM density	Shorter patient survival, enhanced metastasis
Colorectal Cancer	Bioinformatics analysis of TCGA	Negative with B cells, monocytes; Positive with neutrophils, macrophages	Immunosuppressive microenvironment
Glioblastoma	RNA-seq, immune cell infiltration analysis	Correlation with immune checkpoints and infiltration	Potential for combined immunotherapy
Prostate Cancer	scRNA-seq, spatial transcriptomics	Association with "immune desert" phenotype	Therapy resistance
Endometrial Cancer	Imaging mass cytometry	Cancer stem cell marker heterogeneity	Prognostic stratification

Comparative SOX Family Dynamics in Immune Regulation

The SOX family encompasses diverse transcription factors with specialized roles in immunity. While SOX9 promotes M2-like TAM polarization, other SOX members exhibit distinct immunomodulatory functions. SOX4 (SOXC group) contributes to B and T cell development, while SOX13 (SOXD group) influences T-cell function [96]. This functional diversification within the SOX family creates a complex regulatory network that coordinates immune responses across different cellular contexts.

Notably, SOX9's role in immunity appears to be cell type- and context-dependent. In osteoarthritis, SOX9 expression in monocyte-derived cells contributes to cartilage repair, with IL-4 or IL-13-treated macrophages upregulating SOX9 through STAT3 and STAT6 phosphorylation [99]. These cells release Sox9 mRNA and protein-containing exosomes that promote chondrocyte differentiation—demonstrating a protective, regenerative function contrasting with its pro-tumor activities in cancer [99]. This duality exemplifies the "janus-faced" nature of SOX9 in immunity [3].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Methodologies

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for SOX9-TAM Investigations

Reagent/Method	Specific Application	Key Utility	Representative Examples
Metal-tagged Antibodies (IMC)	Multiplexed protein detection at single-cell resolution	Simultaneous evaluation of SOX9, macrophage markers, and functional proteins in spatial context	CD163, SOX9, CD44, ALDH1 [97]
scRNA-seq Platforms	Transcriptome profiling of individual cells	Identification of SOX9-correlated genes and pathway analysis in specific macrophage subsets	10X Genomics, Smart-seq2 [4]
Patient-Derived Organoids	Modeling tumor-TAM interactions ex vivo	Preservation of patient-specific tumor heterogeneity and microenvironmental interactions	Endometrial cancer organoids [97]
Lentiviral SOX9 Constructs	Gain/loss-of-function studies	Mechanistic dissection of SOX9 in macrophage polarization	Inducible SOX9 expression systems [56]
Phospho-Specific Antibodies	Signaling pathway activation	Detection of phosphorylation events in SOX9-related pathways	p-STAT3, p-SMAD3 [98] [99]

Single-cell validation approaches have firmly established SOX9 as a critical regulator of TAM polarization and function within tumor ecosystems. The mechanistic insights gleaned from these studies reveal potential therapeutic opportunities targeting the SOX9-TAM axis. Small molecule drugs that regulate TAM recruitment or polarization represent promising avenues, with candidates identified that interrupt the interaction between tumor cells and macrophages [100]. Additionally, the correlation between SOX9 expression and immune checkpoint molecules suggests potential for combination therapies targeting both SOX9-related pathways and established immunotherapies [4].

Future research directions should include the development of more sophisticated spatial transcriptomics methods to precisely map SOX9-TAM communication networks in situ, and the creation of SOX9-focused therapeutic modalities that can selectively inhibit its pro-tumor functions while preserving its beneficial roles in tissue homeostasis. As single-cell technologies continue to evolve, they will undoubtedly uncover additional layers of complexity in SOX9-mediated immune regulation, further illuminating this pivotal transcription factor's janus-faced nature in cancer immunity.

Figure 2: Single-Cell Validation Workflow for SOX9 in TAM Polarization. Integrated approaches combining single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) and imaging mass cytometry (IMC) generate hypotheses about SOX9-TAM interactions, which are functionally validated to yield mechanistic insights with therapeutic potential.

Comparative Efficacy of Different SOX9 Inhibition Modalities in Preclinical Models

The SOX (SRY-related HMG-box) family of transcription factors represents crucial regulators of embryonic development and cellular homeostasis, with SOX9 emerging as a particularly multifaceted player in both normal physiology and disease pathogenesis [3] [63]. As a member of the SOXE subgroup, SOX9 contains several functional domains organized from N- to C-terminus: a dimerization domain (DIM), the HMG box domain responsible for DNA binding, two transcriptional activation domains (TAM and TAC), and a proline/glutamine/alanine (PQA)-rich domain [3]. This structural complexity enables SOX9 to regulate diverse biological processes, with recent evidence highlighting its significant role as a "double-edged sword" in immunology—promoting immune escape in cancer while contributing to tissue regeneration and repair in inflammatory conditions [3].

Within the context of the broader SOX family, SOX9 exhibits context-dependent dual functions across diverse immune cell types, contributing to the regulation of numerous biological processes [3]. Its expression negatively correlates with infiltration levels of various immune cells, including B cells, resting mast cells, resting T cells, monocytes, plasma cells, and eosinophils, while showing positive correlation with neutrophils, macrophages, activated mast cells, and naive/activated T cells in certain cancers [3]. This complex relationship with the immune system underscores the therapeutic potential of SOX9 modulation.

The following diagram illustrates the key signaling pathways involving SOX9 and the points of intervention for different inhibition modalities discussed in this review:

SOX9 Signaling and Inhibition Pathways. This diagram illustrates the key molecular pathways regulating SOX9 expression and activity, along with the points of intervention for different inhibition strategies. SOX9 is stabilized by USP28 and targeted for degradation by FBXW7. It promotes stemness, DNA damage repair (DDR), and metastasis while transactivating downstream effector genes (DEG). EGFR signaling activates FOXA2, which regulates SOX9 expression. Various inhibition modalities (red ovals) target different components of this network.

As research continues to elucidate SOX9's complex roles, particularly its interactions with other SOX family members in immune regulation, developing effective inhibition strategies has become a priority in therapeutic development. This review systematically compares the efficacy of various SOX9 inhibition modalities in preclinical models, providing researchers with objective data to inform therapeutic development.

Comparative Analysis of SOX9 Inhibition Strategies

Tabular Comparison of Inhibition Modalities

Table 1: Comparative efficacy of SOX9 inhibition strategies across preclinical models

Inhibition Modality	Experimental Model	Efficacy Metrics	Key Findings	Molecular Targets/Pathways
RNA interference (siRNA) [101]	Human chordoma cell lines (U-CH1, CH22); Patient-derived tissues	• Cell proliferation (MTT assay)• Clonogenic capacity• Cell motility (wound healing)• Apoptosis (flow cytometry)	• 40-60% proliferation reduction• Significant decrease in invasion/migration• Induced G1 cell cycle arrest• Enhanced chemo-sensitivity	Direct SOX9 mRNA degradation; Downstream: Caspase-3/7, CDK regulators
USP28 inhibition (AZ1) [49]	Ovarian cancer cell lines (SKOV3, UWB1.289); PARPi-resistant variants	• SOX9 protein stability• DNA damage repair efficiency• Tumor sphere formation• Drug sensitivity (IC50)	• Promoted FBXW7-mediated SOX9 ubiquitination• Impaired homologous recombination• Synergistic effect with PARP inhibitors	USP28-SOX9 protein interaction; FBXW7; DNA repair genes (RAD51, BRCA1)
EGFR/FOXA2 pathway inhibition (Afatinib) [102]	Pancreatic cancer models; Patient-derived organoids; Mouse tumoroids	• Cancer stem cell population• Tumorsphere formation• Metastatic incidence• ALDH1+ cell frequency	• Reduced SOX9 expression via FOXA2• 60-70% decrease in CSC markers• Significant metastasis reduction	EGFR/ERK/FOXA2/SOX9 axis; CSC markers (CD44, ALDH1, ESA)
Drug repurposing (Lopinavir/Ritonavir) [103]	Human primary chondrocytes; Osteoarthritis model	• Chondrocyte viability• Protein expression (Western blot)• ECM morphology• Inflammatory markers	• Significant reduction in SOX9, HIF-1α, IL-1β• Non-cytotoxic at therapeutic concentrations• Preserved ECM structure	HIF-1α/SOX9/IL-1β pathway; Inflammatory and epigenetic regulators

Efficacy Profiles Across Disease Models

Table 2: Therapeutic outcomes of SOX9 inhibition across different disease contexts

Disease Context	SOX9 Expression Pattern	Optimal Inhibition Strategy	Therapeutic Impact	Limitations/Considerations
Chordoma [101]	Broadly expressed; High expression correlates with poor prognosis	siRNA knockdown (40-60 nM)	• Inhibited proliferation and motility• Induced apoptosis and cell cycle arrest• Enhanced conventional chemotherapy	Delivery challenges in vivo; Transient effect requiring repeated administration
Ovarian Cancer [49] [104]	Highly expressed in chemoresistant cells; Correlates with stem-like state	USP28 inhibition + PARPi combination	• Re-sensitized to PARP inhibitors• Impaired DNA damage repair• Reduced tumor sphere formation	Potential toxicity with combination therapy; Context-dependent efficacy
Pancreatic Cancer [102]	Overexpressed in high-grade tumors; Enriched in chemotherapy-treated patients	EGFR inhibition + gemcitabine	• Effectively targeted cancer stem cells• Reduced metastatic incidence• Synergistic with standard chemotherapy	Complex signaling network with redundancy; Adaptive resistance mechanisms
Osteoarthritis [103]	Dysregulated in diseased chondrocytes; Part of inflammatory cascade	Drug repurposing (Lopinavir/Ritonavir)	• Modulated cartilage-related pathways• Reduced inflammatory markers• Favorable safety profile	Disease-modifying potential requires validation; Specificity concerns

Experimental Protocols for Key Methodologies

RNA Interference Protocol

SOX9 siRNA Knockdown in Chordoma Cells [101]

• Cell Culture: Maintain human chordoma cell lines (U-CH1 and CH22) in DMEM medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS), penicillin (100 mg/ml), and streptomycin (100 mg/ml) at 37°C in a humidified incubator with 5% COâ‚‚.
• siRNA Transfection:
  • Seed chordoma cells at 2×10⁵ cells per well in 12-well plates with complete growth medium without antibiotics.
  • Prepare transfection complexes using Lipofectamine RNAiMax Reagent according to manufacturer's instructions.
  • Transfert cells with various concentrations (0, 20, 40, and 60 nM) of synthetic human SOX9 siRNA (target sequence: 5′-CGUGUGAUCAGUGUGCUAAdTdT-3′) or non-specific control siRNA.
  • Incubate cells for 24-72 hours before subsequent analyses.
• Efficacy Assessment:
  • Cell Proliferation: Assess using MTT assay. Seed cells at 3×10³ cells per well in 96-well plates, treat with SOX9 siRNA (10-80 nM) for five days, and measure absorbance at 570 nm.
  • Clonogenic Assay: Plate transfected cells at low density (500 cells/well) and allow to grow for 10-14 days. Fix with methanol and stain with 0.5% crystal violet to visualize colonies.
  • Cell Motility: Perform wound healing assay by creating a scratch in a confluent cell monolayer and monitoring migration at 0, 12, 24, and 48 hours.
  • Apoptosis Analysis: Detect using Annexin V/propidium iodide staining followed by flow cytometry.

USP28 Inhibition Protocol

SOX9 Destabilization via USP28 Inhibition [49]

• Cell Treatment:
  • Culture ovarian cancer cell lines (SKOV3 and UWB1.289) in appropriate media (McCoy's 5A or RPMI 1640) supplemented with 10% FBS.
  • Treat cells with USP28-specific inhibitor AZ1 (concentration range: 1-10 µM) alone or in combination with olaparib (PARP inhibitor).
  • For protein stability assays, co-treat with cycloheximide (CHX, 50 µg/mL) to inhibit new protein synthesis.
• Protein Degradation Analysis:
  • Lyse cells in RIPA buffer containing protease inhibitors.
  • Perform co-immunoprecipitation using anti-SOX9 antibody or control IgG overnight at 4°C.
  • Incubate with protein A/G magnetic beads for 2 hours, wash complexes, and elute in SDS loading buffer.
  • Analyze SOX9 ubiquitination and protein levels by Western blot using anti-ubiquitin and anti-SOX9 antibodies.
• DNA Damage Repair Assessment:
  • Monitor DNA repair efficiency through γH2AX immunofluorescence staining.
  • Perform colony formation assays in the presence of DNA-damaging agents with and without USP28 inhibition.

Cancer Stem Cell Targeting Protocol

EGFR Inhibition for SOX9 Downregulation in Pancreatic Cancer [102]

• Tumor Sphere Formation Assay:
  • Isolate cancer stem cells (CSCs) via Hoechst-based FACS analysis for side population (SP) cells.
  • Culture SP cells in ultra-low attachment plates with serum-free DMEM/F12 medium supplemented with B27, 20 ng/mL EGF, and 20 ng/mL FGF.
  • Treat spheres with afatinib (pan-EGFR inhibitor) alone or in combination with gemcitabine at determined ICâ‚‚â‚€ and ICâ‚…â‚€ concentrations.
  • Count tumorspheres (>50 μm diameter) after 7-10 days of treatment.
• SOX9 Pathway Analysis:
  • Perform Western blot to assess expression of SOX9, pEGFR, ERK, FOXA2, and CSC markers (CD44, ALDH1, ESA).
  • Use siRNA-mediated FOXA2 knockdown to validate its role in SOX9 regulation.
  • Conduct immunohistochemistry on xenograft tumor sections to evaluate in vivo SOX9 and CSC marker expression.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key reagents for studying SOX9 biology and inhibition

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Experimental Notes
SOX9 Inhibitors	SOX9 siRNA (SASIHs0100240733) [101]; AZ1 (USP28 inhibitor) [49]; Afatinib [102]; Lopinavir/Ritonavir [103]	Functional studies of SOX9 inhibition; Therapeutic efficacy assessment	Validate specificity with rescue experiments; Monitor compensatory SOX family member expression
Cell Models	Chordoma cell lines (U-CH1, CH22) [101]; Ovarian cancer lines (SKOV3, UWB1.289) [49]; Patient-derived organoids [102]; Primary chondrocytes [103]	Disease-specific mechanistic studies; Drug screening	Consider tumor heterogeneity; Use low-passage cells for consistency
Antibodies	Anti-SOX9 (AB5535, Sigma) [49]; Anti-ubiquitin (sc-8017, Santa Cruz) [49]; Anti-γH2AX (ab81299, Abcam) [49]; Anti-CD44 [102]	Western blot, Immunofluorescence, Immunohistochemistry, Co-immunoprecipitation	Validate species reactivity; Optimize dilution for each application
Assay Kits	MTT cell proliferation assay [101]; Annexin V apoptosis detection [101]; Hoechst FACS kit for SP analysis [102]	Quantitative assessment of cellular responses	Include appropriate controls; Follow manufacturer's timing recommendations

The comparative analysis of SOX9 inhibition modalities reveals a complex landscape of therapeutic strategies, each with distinct mechanisms of action and efficacy profiles across different disease contexts. Direct gene silencing through RNA interference demonstrates potent effects in chordoma models but faces delivery challenges. Post-translational regulation via USP28 inhibition offers a novel approach to modulate SOX9 protein stability, particularly valuable in treatment-resistant ovarian cancer. Pathway-targeted approaches through EGFR inhibition effectively address SOX9-mediated cancer stemness in pancreatic models, while drug repurposing strategies present opportunities for rapid clinical translation in conditions like osteoarthritis.

The choice of optimal SOX9 inhibition strategy must consider disease context, SOX9's specific role in the pathological process, and the broader interactions within the SOX family network. As research continues to elucidate SOX9's complex roles in immune regulation and tissue homeostasis, combination approaches targeting multiple aspects of SOX9 biology may yield the most promising therapeutic outcomes. Future directions should focus on developing more specific inhibitors, improving delivery systems, and identifying predictive biomarkers to guide patient selection for SOX9-targeted therapies.

The SRY-related HMG-box 9 (SOX9) transcription factor has emerged as a critical regulator in cancer biology, playing a complex, dual role in tumor development and the immune microenvironment. As a member of the SOX family of transcription factors, SOX9 participates in essential biological processes including embryonic development, cell differentiation, and stem cell maintenance [3] [1]. In the context of cancer, SOX9 frequently demonstrates overexpression across various solid malignancies, where it contributes to tumor progression, stemness, and therapy resistance [3] [10]. Recent evidence has increasingly highlighted SOX9's significant involvement in regulating anti-tumor immunity and shaping the tumor immune microenvironment, positioning it as a potentially valuable biomarker for predicting response to immunotherapy [3] [1] [63]. This review comprehensively evaluates SOX9 expression as a predictor of immunotherapy response, comparing its performance across cancer types and providing detailed experimental methodologies for its validation.

SOX9 Structure, Function, and Role in Immune Regulation

Structural Characteristics and Functional Domains

The SOX9 protein contains several functionally critical domains that facilitate its role as a transcription factor. These domains include a dimerization domain (DIM), the high mobility group (HMG) box DNA-binding domain, two transcriptional activation domains (TAM and TAC), and a proline/glutamine/alanine (PQA)-rich domain [3]. The HMG domain enables sequence-specific DNA binding and contains nuclear localization and export signals that facilitate nucleocytoplasmic shuttling. The C-terminal transcriptional activation domain (TAC) interacts with various cofactors such as Tip60 to enhance SOX9's transcriptional activity, while the TAM domain functions synergistically with TAC to augment transcriptional potential [3].

SOX9 Interactions Within the SOX Family Network

SOX9 belongs to the SOXE subgroup of the SOX family, which also includes SOX8 and SOX10 [1] [63]. These family members share structural similarities and often participate in overlapping regulatory networks, particularly in developmental processes and cancer pathogenesis. The SOX family is categorized into eight main groups (B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I) based on sequence similarity and functional properties [1]. SOX proteins contain a conserved HMG box domain comprising approximately 79 amino acids that interacts with DNA's minor groove, causing DNA bending and altered chromatin organization to modulate gene transcriptional activity [1].

Table 1: SOX Family Members Involved in Cancer Immune Evasion

Group	Gene	Role in Cancer Immune Evasion	Mechanisms
B1	SOX2	Induces immune evasion	Alleviates JAK-STAT pathway; upregulates PD-L1 [1]
C	SOX4	Inhibits protective tumor immunity	Suppresses genes in innate/adaptive immune pathways [1]
C	SOX11	Creates immunosuppressive microenvironment	Increases Treg infiltration; downregulates antigen presentation [1]
C	SOX12	Promotes immunosuppression in liver cancer	Increases Tregs; decreases CD8+ T-cells [1]
D	SOX5	Drives immune evasion in triple-negative breast cancer	Transcriptional activation of circ_0084653 [1]
D	SOX13	Decreases CD8+ T cell activity in breast cancer	Reduces cytotoxic T-cell function [1]
E	SOX9	Maintains stem-like state; enables immune evasion	Promotes dormancy; regulates immune cell infiltration [1]
E	SOX10	Regulates immune checkpoint expression in melanoma	Modulates checkpoint protein expression [1]
F	SOX17	Prevents anti-tumor T cell responses	Inhibits IFNγ sensing and response [1]
F	SOX18	Promotes immunosuppressive microenvironment	Transactivates PD-L1 and CXCL12; recruits Tregs and TAMs [1]

SOX9 as a Regulator of Tumor Immune Microenvironment

Mechanisms of SOX9 in Immune Evasion

SOX9 contributes to cancer immune evasion through multiple interconnected mechanisms. It regulates the infiltration and function of various immune cells within the tumor microenvironment, creating conditions favorable for tumor progression [3] [1]. SOX9 expression demonstrates consistent negative correlations with genes associated with the function of CD8+ T cells, natural killer (NK) cells, and M1 macrophages, while showing positive correlations with immunosuppressive cell populations [3]. Additionally, SOX9 enables tumor cells to maintain a stem-like state and remain dormant for extended periods, effectively evading innate immune surveillance [1]. This capacity aligns with SOX9's established role in promoting cancer stem cell properties and cellular plasticity in various malignancies [10] [18].

SOX9-Mediated Modulation of Immune Cell Infiltration

Comprehensive bioinformatics analyses utilizing data from The Cancer Genome Atlas and other resources reveal distinct patterns of immune cell infiltration associated with SOX9 expression across cancer types. In colorectal cancer, SOX9 expression negatively correlates with infiltration levels of B cells, resting mast cells, resting T cells, monocytes, plasma cells, and eosinophils, while demonstrating positive correlations with neutrophils, macrophages, activated mast cells, and naive/activated T cells [3]. Similarly, in prostate cancer, single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics analyses indicate that SOX9 expression is associated with an "immune desert" microenvironment characterized by decreased effector immune cells (CD8+CXCR6+ T cells and activated neutrophils) and increased immunosuppressive cells (Tregs, M2 macrophages, and anergic neutrophils) [3].

SOX9 Regulatory Network in Tumor Immunity: This diagram illustrates SOX9's role in promoting immunosuppression, stemness, and therapy resistance while modulating specific immune cell populations within the tumor microenvironment.

Comparative Analysis of SOX9 Predictive Value Across Cancers

Glioblastoma

In glioblastoma (GBM), SOX9 demonstrates significant potential as both a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker. RNA sequencing data from TCGA and GTEx databases reveal that SOX9 is highly expressed in GBM tissues compared to normal brain tissue [63] [4]. Surprisingly, in contrast to many other cancers, high SOX9 expression in GBM associates with better prognosis in specific patient subgroups, particularly those with lymphoid invasion [63]. SOX9 expression closely correlates with immune infiltration patterns and checkpoint expression in GBM, indicating its involvement in shaping the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment [63]. Furthermore, high SOX9 expression serves as an independent prognostic factor for IDH-mutant glioblastoma in Cox regression analysis [63] [4].

High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer

In high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), SOX9 emerges as a critical mediator of chemoresistance and stemness. Analysis of TCGA data and normal fallopian tube epithelium expression data from GTEX demonstrates that SOX9 expression is significantly higher in HGSOC tissues compared to normal tissues [10]. Patients in the top quartile of SOX9 expression show significantly shorter overall survival probability following platinum treatment compared to those in the bottom quartile [10]. Treatment of HGSOC cell lines with carboplatin induces robust SOX9 upregulation at both RNA and protein levels within 72 hours, suggesting SOX9's critical role in early response to platinum treatment [10]. Single-cell RNA sequencing analysis of patient tumors before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy confirms that SOX9 expression increases significantly following treatment, with 8 of 11 patients showing elevated SOX9 levels post-chemotherapy [10].

Melanoma

In metastatic melanoma, SOX9 expression associates with dedifferentiated tumor states that demonstrate resistance to immunotherapy. Single-cell RNA sequencing analysis of approximately 189,000 cells from 36 metastatic melanoma samples identifies distinct tumor meta-programs, with SOX9 expressed in dedifferentiated meta-programs (Respiration and Stress) that resemble undifferentiated or neural crest-like states [105]. These SOX9-positive dedifferentiated tumor programs enrich in non-responders to immunotherapy, aligning with the established resistance of dedifferentiated melanomas to both targeted therapy and immunotherapy [105].

Breast Cancer

SOX9 plays a multifaceted role in breast cancer pathogenesis and therapy response. In triple-negative breast cancer, SOX9 promotes cancer stem cell properties through regulation by long non-coding RNA linc02095 and breast cancer-associated gene 2 [18]. SOX9 also contributes to immune evasion by maintaining cancer cell dormancy and stemness in secondary metastatic sites, enabling avoidance of immune surveillance under immunotolerant conditions [18]. The protein operates within a complex regulatory network involving SOX10 and AKT signaling, further promoting tumor growth and progression [18].

Table 2: SOX9 Predictive Value Across Cancer Types

Cancer Type	SOX9 Expression Pattern	Correlation with Therapy Response	Prognostic Value
Glioblastoma	Highly expressed in tumor tissue	Better prognosis in lymphoid invasion subgroups; correlates with immune infiltration [63]	Independent prognostic factor for IDH-mutant cases [63] [4]
High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer	Induced by chemotherapy; higher in tumors	Associated with platinum resistance; shorter overall survival [10]	Top quartile SOX9 expression: shorter survival (HR=1.33) [10]
Melanoma	Expressed in dedifferentiated states	Enriched in non-responders to immunotherapy [105]	Associates with resistant dedifferentiated phenotype [105]
Breast Cancer	Upregulated in triple-negative subtype	Promotes stemness, dormancy, and immune evasion [18]	Contributes to therapy resistance and metastasis [18]
Colorectal Cancer	Frequently overexpressed	Negatively correlates with multiple immune cell populations [3]	Associated with poor prognosis [3]
Liver Cancer	Highly expressed	Contributes to immunosuppressive microenvironment [3] [1]	Correlates with poor prognosis [3]

Experimental Approaches for SOX9 Biomarker Validation

Transcriptomic Analysis Protocols

Comprehensive RNA sequencing analysis represents a foundational approach for validating SOX9 as a predictive biomarker. The standard methodology involves extracting RNA sequencing data from repositories such as TCGA and GTEx, typically in HTSeq-FPKM or HTSeq-Count formats [63] [4]. Differential expression analysis between tumor and normal tissues can be performed using the DESeq2 R package with thresholds set at |logFC| > 2 and adjusted p-value < 0.05 [63]. For functional enrichment analysis of SOX9-correlated genes, LinkedOmics database analysis identifies positively and negatively correlated genes, followed by GO/KEGG pathway analysis using Metascape or ClusterProfiler R package [63] [4]. Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) elucidates functional and pathway differences between high and low SOX9 expression groups, with permutation typically set at 1,000 times per analysis and significance thresholds at adjusted p-value < 0.05 and FDR q-value < 0.25 [63].

Immune Infiltration Analysis Methods

Evaluating the relationship between SOX9 expression and immune cell infiltration requires specialized computational approaches. The ssGSEA package and ESTIMATE package within the GSVA package enable comprehensive immune infiltration correlation analysis of SOX9 [63] [4]. These tools calculate infiltration levels of various immune cell types based on expression signatures and correlate them with SOX9 expression values using Spearman's test for statistical significance [63]. Additionally, immune checkpoint expression analysis examines correlations between SOX9 and critical immune checkpoint genes using Wilcoxon rank sum test to determine significance [63] [4]. For single-cell resolution, platforms such as single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics provide detailed characterization of immune cell subtypes and their spatial relationships to SOX9-expressing tumor cells [3] [105].

Survival and Prognostic Analysis

Validating the prognostic significance of SOX9 requires rigorous statistical analysis of clinical outcome data. Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test compares overall survival and progression-free survival between patient groups with high versus low SOX9 expression [63] [10]. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis evaluates the predictive value of SOX9 for diagnosis by comparing expression between tumors and normal tissues [63]. For multivariate adjustment, Cox regression analysis identifies whether SOX9 expression serves as an independent prognostic factor when controlling for other clinical variables [63] [4]. To individualize prediction, nomogram models can incorporate SOX9 expression along with other significant genes and clinical characteristics, with calibration curves and concordance index (C-index) used to validate predictive accuracy [63].

SOX9 Biomarker Validation Workflow: This diagram outlines the key experimental phases and methodologies for validating SOX9 as a predictive biomarker, from data acquisition through clinical correlation analysis.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for SOX9 Biomarker Studies

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Example Sources
TCGA Database	Provides RNA-seq and clinical data for multiple cancer types	Cancer Genome Atlas [63] [10]
GTEx Database	Offers normal tissue expression data for comparison	Genotype-Tissue Expression [63] [10]
DESeq2 R Package	Differential expression analysis	Bioconductor [63]
ssGSEA/ESTIMATE	Immune cell infiltration analysis	GSVA R Package [63] [4]
LinkedOmics Database	Analysis of SOX9-correlated genes	LinkedOmics [63] [4]
Metascape	Functional enrichment analysis	Metascape [63]
String Database	Protein-protein interaction network prediction	STRING [63]
Cytoscape	Visualization of molecular interaction networks	Cytoscape [63]
CRISPR/Cas9 System	SOX9 gene knockout functional validation	Multiple commercial sources [10]
Single-cell RNA-seq Platforms	Characterization of tumor heterogeneity	10X Genomics, Smart-seq2 [10] [105]

SOX9 represents a promising but complex predictive biomarker for immunotherapy response, demonstrating cancer-type-specific associations with clinical outcomes. While generally associated with poor prognosis and therapy resistance in most cancers, including ovarian, breast, and melanoma, it shows paradoxical association with better outcomes in specific glioma subgroups, highlighting the context-dependent nature of its function. The predictive value of SOX9 stems from its dual role in regulating stemness and immune evasion, positioning it at the intersection of key resistance mechanisms. Standardized experimental approaches encompassing transcriptomic analysis, immune infiltration assessment, and clinical correlation are essential for validating SOX9 across different cancer contexts. As research progresses, SOX9 may emerge not only as a predictive biomarker but also as a therapeutic target for overcoming resistance to immunotherapy in various malignancies.

Conclusion

The intricate cross-talk between SOX9 and other SOX family members represents a critical regulatory layer in immune modulation with profound implications for cancer immunotherapy. Through collaborative networks with SOX4, SOX2, SOX10, and other members, SOX9 emerges as a central node controlling multiple aspects of anti-tumor immunity, from T-cell function and macrophage polarization to the creation of immunosuppressive microenvironments. While significant challenges remain—including context-dependent functions, redundancy among SOX members, and therapeutic targeting difficulties—recent methodological advances provide unprecedented tools for dissecting these complex interactions. Future research should prioritize developing isoform-specific inhibitors, understanding temporal dynamics of SOX interactions during disease progression, and exploring combination therapies that simultaneously target multiple SOX network components. The validation of SOX9 and its collaborative partners as biomarkers and therapeutic targets holds exceptional promise for next-generation immunotherapies capable of overcoming current limitations in cancer treatment.

References

• 1. Role of the SOX family in cancer immune evasion [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11789896/]
• 2. SOX on tumors, a comfort or a constraint? [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41420-024-01834-6]
• 3. SOX9: a novel janus-faced regulator in immunity and its ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2025.1700812/full]
• 4. High expression of SOX9 is a diagnostic and prognostic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12277172/]
• 5. Bioinformatics analysis of SOXF family genes reveals potential ... [https://atm.amegroups.org/article/view/97064/html]
• 6. The Dysregulation of SOX Family Correlates with DNA ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9020970/]
• 7. SOX13 as a potential prognostic biomarker linked to ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2024.1478395/full]
• 8. The versatile functions of Sox9 in development, stem cells ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4326072/]
• 9. SOX9 reprograms endothelial cells by altering the chromatin ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9410909/]
• 10. SOX9 drives a stem-like transcriptional state and platinum ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12483608/]
• 11. CRISPR-mediated Sox9 activation and RelA inhibition ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11405173/]
• 12. Sox9 regulates alternative splicing and pancreatic beta cell ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44384-8]
• 13. Sox9 prevents retinal degeneration and is required for ... [https://elifesciences.org/articles/102337]
• 14. Cross-regulation between SOX9 and the canonical Wnt ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10469848/]
• 15. Sox4 functions as a positive regulator of β-catenin ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/labinvest2011196]
• 16. Cellular reprogramming in vivo initiated by SOX4 pioneer ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45939-z]
• 17. The transcription factor Sox4 is required for thymic tuft cell ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11494500/]
• 18. SOX9: an important factor in regulating breast cancer [https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40001-025-02730-0]
• 19. Cross-regulation between SOX9 and the canonical Wnt ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2023.1250530/full]
• 20. Transcription factors SOX4 and SOX9 cooperatively control ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001216061500281X]
• 21. SOX9 Stem-Cell Factor: Clinical and Functional Relevance in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6463569/]
• 22. A Sox2–Sox9 signalling axis maintains human breast ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41388-018-0656-7]
• 23. Antagonistic Cross-Regulation between Sox9 and Sox10 ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4309598/]
• 24. SOX9 is a dose-dependent metastatic fate determinant in ... [https://jeccr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13046-018-0998-6]
• 25. SOX10 requirement for melanoma tumor growth is due, in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221112472101576X]
• 26. SOX10 Inhibits T Cell Recognition by Inducing Expression ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36974807/]
• 27. High expression of SOX10 is correlated with poor prognosis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12058902/]
• 28. High expression of SOX10 is correlated with poor ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2025.1444670/full]
• 29. CEACAM1 is a direct SOX10 target and inhibits melanoma ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004222017965]
• 30. SOX17 enables immune evasion of early colorectal ... - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38418875/]
• 31. Comprehensive analysis, immune, and cordycepin ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1149986/full]
• 32. Comprehensive protocols for CRISPR/Cas9-based gene ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4988528/]
• 33. CRISPR/Cas9-loxP-Mediated Gene Editing as a Novel Site ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5429228/]
• 34. Generation and comparison of CRISPR-Cas9 and Cre ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15999]
• 35. A CRISPR-Cas9, Cre-lox, and Flp-FRT Cascade Strategy for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7757697/]
• 36. Comparison of CRISPR-Cas9-mediated megabase-scale ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9847339/]
• 37. SOX9 indirectly regulates CEACAM1 expression and ... [https://www.oncotarget.com/article/7379/text/]
• 38. Exploring tissue architecture using spatial transcriptomics - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8475179/]
• 39. Single-cell transcriptome profiling reveals immune and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10558796/]
• 40. Novel insights into kidney disease: the scRNA-seq and spatial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12288332/]
• 41. Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals multiple immune ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-80993-z]
• 42. Integrating spatial and single-cell transcriptomics to ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-025-08316-0]
• 43. SOX9 protein expression summary [https://www.proteinatlas.org/ENSG00000125398-SOX9]
• 44. Single-cell RNA-seq and pathological phenotype reveal the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11840104/]
• 45. SOX9: A genomic view of tissue specific expression and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28323209/]
• 46. SOX9 Gene [https://maayanlab.cloud/Harmonizome/gene/SOX9]
• 47. SOX9: an important factor in regulating breast cancer - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12360010/]
• 48. SOX9 as an emerging target for anticancer drugs and a ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359644622002136]
• 49. USP28 promotes PARP inhibitor resistance by enhancing ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41419-025-07647-4]
• 50. SOX9 is controlled by the BRD4 inhibitor JQ1 via multiple ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30833074/]
• 51. What are SOX9 inhibitors and how do they work? [https://synapse.patsnap.com/article/what-are-sox9-inhibitors-and-how-do-they-work]
• 52. USP18 deubiquitinates and stabilizes SOX9 to promote the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41420-025-02522-9]
• 53. RNAi vs. CRISPR: Guide to Selecting the Best Gene ... [https://www.synthego.com/blog/rnai-vs-crispr-guide/]
• 54. Systematic comparison of CRISPR-Cas9 and RNAi ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4900911/]
• 55. Optimizing sgRNA structure to improve CRISPR-Cas9 ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0846-3]
• 56. The pioneer factor SOX9 competes for epigenetic factors to ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41556-023-01184-y]
• 57. Comprehensive analysis, immune, and cordycepin ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10067558/]
• 58. Comprehensive analysis, diagnosis, prognosis, and ... [https://cancerci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12935-024-03467-2]
• 59. Sulforhodamine B [https://biotium.com/product/sulforhodamine-b/]
• 60. Synthesis of [18F]2B-SRF101: A Sulfonamide Derivative ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5740491/]
• 61. Limitations of Sulforhodamine 101 for Brain Imaging [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fncel.2017.00044/full]
• 62. Precise modulation of transcription factor levels identifies ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-023-01366-2]
• 63. High expression of SOX9 is a diagnostic and prognostic ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2025.1531937/full]
• 64. Protein interactions - SOX9 [https://www.proteinatlas.org/ENSG00000125398-SOX9/interaction]
• 65. Identifying pathological myopia associated genes with ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2025.1533567/full]
• 66. Predicting gene expression changes from chromatin ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41540-025-00510-4]
• 67. SOX9: An emerging driving factor from cancer progression ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33524528/]
• 68. Recurrent, truncating SOX9 mutations are associated with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5239443/]
• 69. Oncogenicity of the developmental transcription factor Sox9 [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3378515/]
• 70. SOX9 suppresses colon cancer via inhibiting epithelial ... [https://www.jci.org/articles/view/184115]
• 71. Global genome analysis of the downstream binding targets ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22984422/]
• 72. SOX family transcription factors involved in diverse cellular ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0171933515300078]
• 73. Transcription factors Sox8 and Sox10 perform non-equivalent roles during oligodendrocyte development despite functional redundancy - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15102707/]
• 74. Replacement of the Sox10 transcription factor by Sox8 reveals incomplete functional equivalence - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16790476/?dopt=Abstract]
• 75. SOX9 indirectly regulates CEACAM1 expression and immune ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5058672/]
• 76. Molecular Analysis of the Differential Activity of Sox8 and Sox10 in Oligodendroglial Cells - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11678246/]
• 77. SOX9: a key transcriptional regulator in organ fibrosis - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11835943/]
• 78. SOX9 as an emerging target for anticancer drugs and a ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35636723/]
• 79. Targeting SOX9 May Help Overcome Ovarian Cancer ... [https://breakthroughsforphysicians.nm.org/obgyn-research-article-transcription-factor-ovarian-cancer]
• 80. A kinome-wide screen identifies a CDKL5-SOX9 regulatory ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7174303/]
• 81. SOX9: a key transcriptional regulator in organ fibrosis [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1507282/full]
• 82. Research Advances in Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12562440/]
• 83. Advances in Nano-Drug Delivery for Tumor ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12298278/]
• 84. Precision nanomedicine: navigating the tumor ... [https://molecular-cancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12943-025-02357-z]
• 85. FGF signaling activates a Sox9-Sox10 pathway for the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4067963/]
• 86. The dose-dependent effect of SOX9 and its incidence in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959804917312728]
• 87. SOX9 Regulates Low Density Lipoprotein Receptor-related ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3585081/]
• 88. Super-enhancer inhibitors THZ2 and JQ1 reverse ... [https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/cdr.2025.105]
• 89. A SOX9-B7x axis safeguards dedifferentiated tumor cells ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1534580723005518]
• 90. Deciphering of SOX9 Functions in Pancreatic Cancer Cells [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/6/2652]
• 91. SOX9 drives KRAS-induced lung adenocarcinoma ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11809655/]
• 92. SOX9 drives KRAS-induced lung adenocarcinoma ... - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37258742/]
• 93. Studying the Role of Sox9 in Lung Cancer [https://news.cuanschutz.edu/cancer-center/sox9-in-lung-cancer]
• 94. Resistance to anti-LAG-3 plus anti-PD-1 therapy in head ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59050-4]
• 95. Analysis of immune infiltration in basal cell carcinoma ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12672-025-02621-0]
• 96. Comparative analysis demonstrates cell type-specific ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-48979-4]
• 97. Multiplex single‐cell profiling of putative cancer stem ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12161474/]
• 98. Tumor-associated macrophages promote tumor metastasis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5725132/]
• 99. LncRNA MM2P-induced, exosome-mediated transfer of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41419-020-02945-5]
• 100. The role of tumor-associated macrophages in lung cancer [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332223018127]
• 101. Expression and Therapeutic Potential of SOX9 in Chordoma [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5581713/]
• 102. Selective inhibition of stemness through EGFR/FOXA2/ ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7848971/]
• 103. in vitro and in silico exploration of the HIF-1α/SOX9/IL-1β ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12255043/]
• 104. SOX9 drives a stem-like transcriptional state and platinum ... [https://www.jci.org/articles/view/186467]
• 105. Mature and migratory dendritic cells promote immune ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62878-5]