4.7 Review

To NET or not to NET: current opinions and state of the science regarding the formation of neutrophil extracellular traps

Journal

CELL DEATH AND DIFFERENTIATION
Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 395-408

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41418-018-0261-x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Collaborative Research Center 1181 of the German Research Foundation [CRC1181-C03]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01 AR069569, R01HL134846]
  3. Lupus Research Alliance
  4. National Science Centre of Poland [2014/15/B/NZ6/02519]
  5. Lupus Research Alliance of New York, NY (USA)
  6. Fundacion Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares Carlos III (CNIC)
  7. Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades (MCIU)
  8. Pro CNIC Foundation
  9. Severo Ochoa Center of Excellence (MEIC) [SEV-2015-0505]
  10. BMBF/GSRT German-Greek Bilateral Research and Innovation [T2DGE-0101]
  11. Jerome L. Greene Foundation
  12. German Research Foundation [DFG AN372/14-3, DFG AN372/24-1]
  13. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES [ZIAAR041199] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Since the discovery and definition of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) 14 years ago, numerous characteristics and physiological functions of NETs have been uncovered. Nowadays, the field continues to expand and novel mechanisms that orchestrate formation of NETs, their previously unknown properties, and novel implications in disease continue to emerge. The abundance of available data has also led to some confusion in the NET research community due to contradictory results and divergent scientific concepts, such as pro- and anti-inflammatory roles in pathologic conditions, demarcation from other forms of cell death, or the origin of the DNA that forms the NET scaffold. Here, we present prevailing concepts and state of the science in NET-related research and elaborate on open questions and areas of dispute.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available