DOI: 10.17918/00000280
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characterizing the Macrophage Response to Immunomodulatory Biomaterials Through Gene Set Analyses

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
4
0

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Another reason for the mild differences among phenotypes may be the removal of polarizing cytokines during macrophage culture on scaffolds, although we verified by flow cytometry that, after 3 days of culture without cytokines, unpolarized and polarized macrophages maintain distinct phenotypes, with M1 macrophages being characterized by low levels of CD206 and CD163, that are instead highly expressed in M2a and M2c macrophages, respectively. Differently from similar studies that focus on the biomaterial-induced response of unpolarized macrophages [ 26 , 59 , 60 ], here the rationale for evaluating also the response of pre-polarized macrophages was to emulate an implantation scenario where a scaffold is introduced into a region that is potentially exhibiting different inflammatory conditions. Under this scenario, monocytes/macrophages could potentially be already polarized in response to the local signaling events resulting from either the existing condition that necessitates an implant or the implantation procedure itself.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another reason for the mild differences among phenotypes may be the removal of polarizing cytokines during macrophage culture on scaffolds, although we verified by flow cytometry that, after 3 days of culture without cytokines, unpolarized and polarized macrophages maintain distinct phenotypes, with M1 macrophages being characterized by low levels of CD206 and CD163, that are instead highly expressed in M2a and M2c macrophages, respectively. Differently from similar studies that focus on the biomaterial-induced response of unpolarized macrophages [ 26 , 59 , 60 ], here the rationale for evaluating also the response of pre-polarized macrophages was to emulate an implantation scenario where a scaffold is introduced into a region that is potentially exhibiting different inflammatory conditions. Under this scenario, monocytes/macrophages could potentially be already polarized in response to the local signaling events resulting from either the existing condition that necessitates an implant or the implantation procedure itself.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We have demonstrated that ADM used as a delivery device for adsorbed IL-4 significantly increased angiogenesis in a murine dorsal skin fold window chamber model of implant-based breast reconstruction. Interleukin 4 is known to modulate M2 macrophage activity, which is critical for the maturation and stabilization of newly forming vascular networks 20–23,29 . The ability to orderly coordinate the transition to M2 phenotypic profile and accelerate ADM incorporation using ADM as an IL-4 delivery vehicle could improve clinical outcomes and limit dollars lost to complications, even in patients requiring adjunctive radiation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interleukin 4 is known to modulate M2 macrophage activity, which is critical for the maturation and stabilization of newly forming vascular networks. [20][21][22][23]29 The ability to orderly coordinate the transition to M2 phenotypic profile and accelerate ADM incorporation using ADM as an IL-4 delivery vehicle could improve clinical outcomes and limit dollars lost to complications, even in patients requiring adjunctive radiation. This study demonstrated increased vascular integration and maturation within ADM during integration as a function of IL-4 delivery.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation