A brief survey of the history of inflammation

What is “inflammation”? Are we ready to move beyond Celsus?

“…In his model, inflammation (and pus specifically) was part of the beneficial response to injury, rather than a superimposed pathology. 1 This humoral view of inflammation persisted into the 19th century when the fifth cardinal sign-function laesa, loss of function-was added in 1871 by Virchow (table 1). In contrast with Galen, however, Virchow viewed inflammation as inherently pathological.…”

“…A prominent German biologist, Neumann, defined inflammation more loosely as a ''series of local phenomena developing as the result of primary lesions to the tissues and that tend to restore their health''. 1 In one sense, the most cited sports medicine model could be seen as an elaboration of this 19th century vesselcell hierarchy. 7 In the classic monograph Sports-induced inflammation, Leadbetter 7 describes a stereotyped cellular response that follows trauma to vessels.…”

The Sterile Inflammatory Response

“…Written symbols for inflammation have been identified in Sumerian hieroglyphics dating back to 2700 BC and what we recognize today as the essential signs and symptoms of inflammation – redness, heat, swelling and pain – were described by the Roman academician Aulus Cornelius Celsus in the first century AD (1) (2) (3). Pus, which is another sign of inflammation primarily seen in certain infections, has also been described since ancient times (4).…”

Temporal profile of M1 and M2 responses in the hippocampus following early 24 h of neurotrauma

“…In tissue, inflammation is characterized by the presence of perivascular infiltrates arising from the adoptive immune response [13,68,72]. The process involves many pro-inflammatory and antiinflammatory factors derived from both blood infiltrates and local cells [72].…”