Induction of specific macrophage subtypes by defined micro-patterned structures

Bartneck, Matthias; Schulte, Vera A.; Paul, N; Díez, Mar; Lensen, Marga C.; Zwadlo-Klarwasser, Gabriele

doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2010.04.025

Cited by 80 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ratio of MR+ (M2-marker (Agrawal, 2012;Mantovani, 2006;Choi et al, 2010)) cells to Calprotectin+ (M1-marker (Bartneck et al, 2010)) cells was ∼3 on PS and decreased to ∼1 on O 2 -PS40 (Fig. 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…They are also characterised by elevated expression of the chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 7 (CCR7) (Agrawal, 2012), CCR2 (Willenborg et al, 2012), calprotectin (Bartneck et al, 2010), and nitric oxide synthase 2, inducible (NOS2) (Edin et al, 2012). In contrast, M2 macrophages secrete large amounts of anti-inflammatory and pro-fibrotic cytokines such as IL-10 (Mantovani, 2006), transforming growth factor (TGF-␤) (Hao et al, 2012), and IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA) (Baitsch et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of surface chemistry modification on macrophage polarisation

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Macrophages are innate immune cells that have a central role in combating infection and maintaining tissue homeostasis. They exhibit remarkable plasticity in response to environmental cues. At either end of a broad activation spectrum are pro-inflammatory (M1) and anti-inflammatory (M2) macrophages with distinct functional and phenotypical characteristics. Macrophages also play a crucial role in orchestrating immune responses to biomaterials used in the fabrication of implantable devices and drug delivery systems. To assess the impact of different surface chemistries on macrophage polarisation, human monocytes were cultured for 6 days on untreated hydrophobic polystyrene (PS) and hydrophilic O2 plasma-etched polystyrene (O2-PS40) surfaces. Our data clearly show that monocytes cultured on the hydrophilic O2-PS40 surface are polarised towards an M1-like phenotype, as evidenced by significantly higher expression of the pro-inflammatory transcription factors STAT1 and IRF5. By comparison, monocytes cultured on the hydrophobic PS surface exhibited an M2-like phenotype with high expression of mannose receptor (MR) and production of the anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-10 and CCL18. While the molecular basis of such different patterns of cell differentiation is yet to be fully elucidated, we hypothesise that it is due to the adsorption of different biomolecules on these surface chemistries. Indeed our surface characterisation data show quantitative and qualitative differences between the protein layers on the O2-PS40 surface compared to PS surface which could be responsible for the observed differential macrophage polarisation on each surface.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The impact of surface chemistry modification on macrophage polarisation

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2,23 With regard to M1 macrophage labeling (iNOS+ cells), a higher number of iNOS+ cells was expected in the group with greater intensity of inflammatory reaction. Conversely, EPH presented the highest number of positive cells, which may be related to the role of these cells in the release of enzymes related to matrix degradation, such as collagenases and metalloproteinases 12,15 and their influx into regions inflamed by debris removal. 11,12 Therefore, a greater number of iNOS+ cells in the EPH group could allow faster remodeling and removal of sealer debris, which could be related to faster tissue reorganization observed in sections stained with HE.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13 These macrophages, known as M1 and M2, can both be found in tissue, but the predominance of M1 is generally associated with greater inflammatory reaction and release of pro-inflammatory mediators, 14 while M2 is associated with the initiation of tissue remodeling, angiogenesis and repair. 15 Despite the importance of biomaterial compounds in macrophage activity, 16,17 few studies have attempted to assess the effects of endodontic sealers on macrophage phenotype, 10,14,18 which may influence the magnitude, type and duration of the inflammatory immune response. Considering that functional macrophage phenotypes can be altered as a result of changes in their microenvironment, 11,12,13 such as material properties, 10,14,[16][17][18] further studies need to be conducted to determine the effects of chemically different endodontic sealers on referred cells.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of tissue reaction to freshly mixed endodontic sealers and their relationship with the M1 macrophage phenotype

Moura¹,

Miyagaki²,

Oliveira³

et al. 2014

Dental Press Endod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: This study assessed tissue response to freshly mixed sealers (Sealer 26 -SE26 and Epiphany -EPH) and the relationship between M1 macrophages and tissue repair. Methods: A total of 21 rats were used to assess tissue response at 7, 14 and 21 days post-implantation. Half of histopathological sections were labeled with anti-iNOS antibodies (M1 macrophage subset) and half were graded according to the inflammatory intensity. Results: On day 7, no significant difference was found in the intensity of the

show abstract

“…Indeed, topological and chemical patterning of substrates have been well documented to influence macrophage activation, morphology and phenotype [47,48].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%