4.7 Article

Transcriptomic analyses of murine resolution-phase macrophages

期刊

BLOOD
卷 118, 期 26, 页码 E192-E208

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2011-04-345330

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. Medical Research Council/GlaxoSmithKline
  3. MRC [G0800758] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. British Heart Foundation [SP/07/007/23671] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [G0800758] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Macrophages are either classically (M1) or alternatively-activated (M2). Whereas this nomenclature was generated from monocyte-derived macrophages treated in vitro with defined cytokine stimuli, the phenotype of in vivo-derived macrophages is less understood. We completed Affymetrix-based transcriptomic analysis of macrophages from the resolution phase of a zymosan-induced peritonitis. Compared with macrophages from hyperinflamed mice possessing a pro-inflammatory nature as well as naive macrophages from the uninflamed peritoneum, resolution-phase macro-phages (rM) are similar to monocyte-derived dendritic cells (DCs), being CD209a positive but lacking CD11c. They are enriched for antigen processing/presentation (MHC class II [H2-Eb1, H2-Ab1, H2-Ob, H2-Aa], CD74, CD86), secrete T-and B-lymphocyte chemokines (Xcl1, Ccl5, Cxcl13) as well as factors that enhance macrophage/DC development, and promote DC/T cell synapse formation (Clec2i, Tnfsf4, Clcf1). rM are also enriched for cell cycle/proliferation genes as well as Alox15, Timd4, and Tgfb2, key systems in the termination of leukocyte trafficking and clearance of inflammatory cells. Finally, comparison with in vitro-derived M1/M2 shows that rM are neither classically nor alternatively activated but possess aspects of both definitions consistent with an immune regulatory phenotype. We propose that macrophages in situ cannot be rigidly categorized as they can express many shades of the inflammatory spectrum determined by tissue, stimulus, and phase of inflammation. (Blood. 2011; 118(26):e192-e208)

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

4.7
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