M1 But Not M0 Extracellular Vesicles Induce Polarization of RAW264.7 Macrophages Via the TLR4-NFκB Pathway In Vitro

Abstract

In response to different stimuli (e.g., infections), naive macrophages polarize into M1 macrophages, which have the potential to secrete numerous proinflammatory cytokines and extracellular vesicles (EVs). EVs are important mediators of intercellular communication. Via horizontal transfer, EVs transport various molecules (e.g., proteins, DNA, and RNA) to target cells. This in vitro study elucidated that M1-EVs from macrophages induced by interferon-γ (IFN-γ) and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) 24 h (M1), but not M0-EVs from untreated macrophages (M0), shifted M0 into M1 phenotype via activating the nuclear factor-κB pathway. The characteristics of these EVs were assessed by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA), and a western blot assay. RAW 264.7 cells were incubated with M1-EVs (experimental group) or PBS (sham group) or M0-EVs (control group) for 24 h. The viability, change of shape, and phenotype differentiation of the macrophages were identified by a 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay, flow cytometry, and immunofluorescence staining. The TLR4-NFκB pathway of RAW264.7 macrophages was assessed by a western blot assay. M1-EVs but not M0-EVs were incorporated by the RAW264.7 cells and directly induced polarization of RAW264.7 macrophages to M1 macrophages. This polarization was demonstrated by significant upregulation of the M1 macrophage marker CD86 in the experimental group (49.93 ± 5.0%) as compared with that in the control and sham groups (1.22% and 1.46%, respectively) and significant upregulation of iNOS in the experimental group (75 ± 5.0%) as compared with that in the control and sham groups (0%). Furthermore, cell viability was higher (1.3 times) in the experimental group as compared with that in both the sham and control groups. The regulatory mechanism of M1-EVs on RAW 264.7 macrophages polarization and activation was triggered by the

Repetitive Treatment with Volatile Anesthetics Does Not Affect the In Vivo Plasma Concentration and Composition of Extracellular Vesicles in Rats

“…To justify in vivo experiments of the EVs derived from this study in ischemia reperfusion models, such as myocardial infarction or stroke, a preliminary step would be to prove that the different stimuli result in treatment-dependent differences regarding the vesicle population. This could be differences in size and concentration, as previously used to distinguish between EVs from M0 or M1 macrophages, for example [39], and/or differences in the EV cargo, such as proteins or miRNAs; for instance, CD63, CD81 receptors, flotillin or HSP70 expression on the EV surface, all of which provide evidence regarding different EV populations [3].…”

Extracellular vesicles as mediators and markers of acute organ injury: current concepts

“…Monocyte-released EVs were shown to upregulate the synthesis of pro-inflammatory mediators via activation of NF-kB [ 118 ]. In the context of chest trauma, Shi et al (2020) recently described that M1 macrophages, but not M0-derived EVs induce macrophage polarization [ 119 ].…”

Combination Treatment With Remdesivir and Ivermectin Exerts Highly Synergistic and Potent Antiviral Activity Against Murine Coronavirus Infection

“…IL-6, TNF-a, nitric oxide), and significantly contribute to the immune response (Sica et al, 2015;Smith et al, 2016). For example, one regulatory mechanism of M1 polarization and activation of RAW264.7 macrophages is triggered by activating the TLR4 and NF-kB signaling pathway (Shi et al, 2020). Interestingly, in contrast to M2 AMs, M1 AMs have a lower endosomal pH that favors membrane fusion, permits entry of viral RNA from the endosome into the cytoplasm where SARS-CoV-2 replicatesthe virus is then packaged and released to facilitate infection of the lungs (Lv et al, 2021).…”