4.6 Article

Novel Markers to Delineate Murine M1 and M2 Macrophages

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145342

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. International Foundation for Research on Paraplegia [P 129]
  2. National Institutes of Health [NIH R21 R21NS081413, NIAID R01-AI092117]
  3. Ray W. Poppleton Endowment
  4. Ohio State University Mayer's Undergraduate Summer Research Fellowship
  5. Systems and Integrative Biology Fellowship [NIH T32]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Classically (M1) and alternatively activated (M2) macrophages exhibit distinct phenotypes and functions. It has been difficult to dissect macrophage phenotypes in vivo, where a spectrum of macrophage phenotypes exists, and also in vitro, where low or non-selective M2 marker protein expression is observed. To provide a foundation for the complexity of in vivo macrophage phenotypes, we performed a comprehensive analysis of the transcriptional signature of murine M0, M1 and M2 macrophages and identified genes common or exclusive to either subset. We validated by real-time PCR an M1-exclusive pattern of expression for CD38, G-protein coupled receptor 18 (Gpr18) and Formyl peptide receptor 2 (Fpr2) whereas Early growth response protein 2 (Egr2) and c-Myc were M2-exclusive. We further confirmed these data by flow cytometry and show that M1 and M2 macrophages can be distinguished by their relative expression of CD38 and Egr2. Egr2 labeled more M2 macrophages (similar to 70%) than the canonical M2 macrophage marker Arginase-1, which labels 24% of M2 macrophages. Conversely, CD38 labeled most (71%) in vitro M1 macrophages. In vivo, a similar CD38(+) population greatly increased after LPS exposure. Overall, this work defines exclusive and common M1 and M2 signatures and provides novel and improved tools to distinguish M1 and M2 murine macrophages.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available