4.6 Article

Peritoneal macrophages are distinct from monocytes and adherent macrophages

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 219, 期 2, 页码 475-483

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2011.09.014

关键词

Adherence; Apoptosis Gene array; MFG-E8; Scavenger receptors

资金

  1. American Heart Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Peritoneal macrophages are used in many studies related to atherosclerosis. In situ, they are non-adherent and upon culturing, they adhere and function as scavengers of modified lipoproteins and dead apoptotic cells. They also produce growth factors, suggesting that they may provide life-supporting function as well. In this study, we propose that macrophage adherence plays a major role in their function and propose a novel concept that non-adherent macrophages are poor scavengers and may delay the process of apoptosis by secretion of growth factors. Methods and results: We analyzed non-adherent and adherent macrophages for changes in receptor expression, growth factor production and function by microarrays, real-time PCR, and western blot analyses. Our results indicate that adherent macrophages have increased expression of scavenger receptors as compared to fresh peritoneal cells. While genes for many growth factors were expressed in both non-adherent and adherent macrophages, the milk fat globule-epidermal growth factor 8 protein (MFG-E8) that recognizes and takes up apoptotic cells was specifically enhanced in non-adherent cells. Furthermore, early apoptotic endothelial cells demonstrated signs of delayed apoptosis when incubated in the presence of peritoneal lavage fluid that was shown to contain MFG-E8. Functional arrays indicated that peritoneal non-adherent macrophages represent a class of macrophages, distinct from either blood monocytes or adherent cultured macrophages. Conclusions: These results suggest that the adherence status of macrophages may play a major role in their functions. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据