4.8 Review

Clinical significance of monocyte heterogeneity

Journal

CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
Volume 4, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGEROPEN
DOI: 10.1186/s40169-014-0040-3

Keywords

Monocyte; CD14; CD16; Ly6C; Macrophage; Cardiovascular; Atherosclerosis; Autoimmune Disease; Human; Mouse

Funding

  1. NIH [P50 NS052606, GRU S00104]
  2. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [K12HD000850] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [P50NS052606] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Monocytes are primitive hematopoietic cells that primarily arise from the bone marrow, circulate in the peripheral blood and give rise to differentiated macrophages. Over the past two decades, considerable attention to monocyte diversity and macrophage polarization has provided contextual clues into the role of myelomonocytic derivatives in human disease. Until recently, human monocytes were subdivided based on expression of the surface marker CD16. Classical monocytes express surface markers denoted as CD14(++)CD16(-) and account for greater than 70% of total monocyte count, while non-classical monocytes express the CD16 antigen with low CD14 expression (CD14(+) CD16(++)). However, recognition of an intermediate population identified as CD14(++) CD16(+) supports the new paradigm that monocytes are a true heterogeneous population and careful identification of specific subpopulations is necessary for understanding monocyte function in human disease. Comparative studies of monocytes in mice have yielded more dichotomous results based on expression of the Ly6C antigen. In this review, we will discuss the use of monocyte subpopulations as biomarkers of human disease and summarize correlative studies in mice that may yield significant insight into the contribution of each subset to disease pathogenesis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available