2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2014.06.008
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Macrophage Activation and Polarization: Nomenclature and Experimental Guidelines

Abstract: Summary Description of macrophage activation is currently contentious and confusing. Like the biblical Tower of Babel, macrophage activation encompasses a panoply of descriptors used in different ways. The lack of consensus on how to define macrophage activation in experiments in vitro and in vivo impedes progress in multiple ways, including the fact that many researchers still consider there to be only the two types of activated macrophages often termed M1 and M2. Here we describe a set of standards for the f… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

93
3,699
7
33

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4,539 publications
(3,832 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
93
3,699
7
33
Order By: Relevance
“…When proposing that Kv1.3 inhibitors preferentially inhibit “M1‐like” inflammatory microglia/macrophage functions and preserve beneficial “M2‐like” functions, we are fully cognizant of the fact that microglia are highly plastic and, unlike T‐cells, do not achieve stable differentiation states 48. Yet, our results seem to support this simple therapeutic hypothesis by showing that the observed reduction in infarct area and improvement in neurological deficit following PAP‐1 treatment is accompanied by a reduction in brain levels of IL‐1 β and IFN‐ γ , but not IL‐10 and BDNF or an impairment of phagocytosis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When proposing that Kv1.3 inhibitors preferentially inhibit “M1‐like” inflammatory microglia/macrophage functions and preserve beneficial “M2‐like” functions, we are fully cognizant of the fact that microglia are highly plastic and, unlike T‐cells, do not achieve stable differentiation states 48. Yet, our results seem to support this simple therapeutic hypothesis by showing that the observed reduction in infarct area and improvement in neurological deficit following PAP‐1 treatment is accompanied by a reduction in brain levels of IL‐1 β and IFN‐ γ , but not IL‐10 and BDNF or an impairment of phagocytosis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4). IL-4 is well known to up-regulate 15-LOX-1 (49), and this has been included as a criterion for M2 differentiation (3). Apparently, initiation of Mf polarization in M2 direction by M-CSF is sufficient to up-regulate 15-LOX-1, thus increasing the capacity for formation of lipoxins and resolvins.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A major issue in Mf biology is to characterize functional phenotypes, currently described as a heterogeneous spectrum of activated states, from M1 to M2 (3,4). Stimulating factors, such as cytokines and pathogens, can induce specific phenotypes: originally IFN-g + LPS activation resulted in a proinflammatory M1 state, whereas IL-4 activation induced the alternatively activated M2 state.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The study described focused on in vitro characterization of rabbit macrophages of different phenotypes, which could expand the scope of in vitro methods for polarization of human and mouse macrophages. The study also provides additional experimental data to further develop experimental guidelines for macrophage activation and classification 28.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%