Phenotypical and Functional Polymorphism of Liver Resident Macrophages: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects: Cell Biology | Developmental Biology | Immunology
Contributor:
Andrey Elchaninov

Liver diseases are one of the main causes of mortality. In this regard, the development of new ways of reparative processes stimulation is relevant. Macrophages play a leading role in the regulation of liver homeostasis in physiological conditions and in pathology. In this regard, the development of new liver treatment methods is impossible without taking into account this cell population. Resident macrophages of the liver, Kupffer cells, represent a unique cell population, first of all, due to their development. Most of the liver macrophages belong to the self-sustaining macrophage cell population, whose origin is not bone marrow. In addition, Kupffer cells are involved in such processes as regulation of hepatocyte proliferation and apoptosis, remodeling of the intercellular matrix, lipid metabolism, protective function, etc. Such a broad spectrum of liver macrophage functions indicates their high functional plasticity. The Recent data on the development, phenotypic and functional plasticity, and participation in the reparative processes of liver macrophages: resident macrophages (Kupffer cells) and bone marrow-derived macrophages were summarized.

  • monocytes
  • macrophages
  • Kupffer cells
  • liver
  • regeneration

1. Introduction

Liver pathology still accounts a significant portion in the structure of morbidity [1][2]. In this regard, a constant search for new therapeutic approaches, including the usage of cellular and gene technologies, is needed [3][4]. Resident macrophages of the liver, Kupffer cells, which account 80–90% of all macrophages of the mammalian organism [5], are considered as one of the possible application targets of regenerative medicine [6]. In addition, Kupffer cells play a key role in maintaining liver homeostasis in normal and pathological conditions [7]. Macrophages serve as significant regulators of liver regeneration [8][9], development of inflammatory processes, fibrosis [10][11], cholestatic diseases [12], tumor progression [13], and liver damage during transplantation [14].
Development of new methods of treating liver diseases is impossible without studying the population of liver macrophages. However, this is an extremely difficult task, as macrophages represent a highly heterogeneous cell population. In this regard, the review focuses on current data on ontogenesis, phenotypic and functional plasticity of liver macrophages and their role in reparative processes.

2. Macrophage Population of the Liver

As has been mentioned above, in the normal liver of mammals, the population of macrophages is composed largely of cells that originate from the erythro-myeloid progenitor cells of the yolk sac and are commonly referred to as Kupffer cells. Macrophages derived from the blood monocytes represent a minor population in the liver; according to different estimates, they constitute from 5% to 30% of total liver macrophages [15][16][17][18].
Such a large variation in quantitative estimation of the population of bone marrow-derived macrophages in the liver is due to specific choices of the markers used to identify them [19]. In our opinion, the most relevant choice is represented by a combination of Ly6C and CX3CR1 markers [15][20][18].
The majority of studies on macrophage ontogenesis were performed using laboratory mice. The postnatal mouse macrophages of bone marrow origin carry the surface protein Ly6C, which is absent from the surface of Kupffer cells [18][21]. Similarly, the protein marker CX3CR1 is used to recognize bone marrow-derived macrophages in rats (since Ly6C protein is not detected in rats) [18]. According to the data obtained with these markers, the proportion of bone marrow-derived macrophages in the liver constitutes approximately 5% [15][20][18]. Such an assessment is consistent with the observation that liver macrophages are diverse by their size and location. Two types of liver macrophages have been identified: large, located near the sinusoidal capillaries, and small, located around the central veins and portal tracts. Both of them express CD68; however, CD163 is expressed at a high level only by large Kupffer cells [22][23]. The small macrophages constitute about 8%, which is similar to the proportion of bone marrow-derived liver macrophages determined by Ly6C immunostaining [15][18]. These findings allow the possibility to consider small liver macrophages as the cells of monocytic origin.
The most controversial data is obtained using markers CD11b and CD68. These markers are expressed in a variety of cell types including all leukocytes; in addition, CD68 is found in endothelial cells and fibroblasts [24]. CD11b and CD68 participate in cell adhesion, cell migration, and phagocytosis; accordingly, their expression may undergo considerable rapid changes [24][25][26].
CD11b has been employed as a marker of bone marrow-derived macrophages in some studies [16][17][27]. It has been shown that, although all macrophages found in the liver (Kupffer cells and bone marrow-derived macrophages) express CD11b, the bone marrow-derived macrophages express it at a higher level [20][28][18][29][30].
Using the latest Single Cell RNA sequencing method in the human liver MacParland and colleagues established the presence of two populations of resident macrophages with pro-inflammatory and immunoregulatory (non-inflammatory) phenotypes. One of the main differences between these two populations was the expression level of the MARCO marker, which prevailed in non-inflammatory macrophages; MARCO+ macrophages were localized in the periportal zone [31]. Another study with Single cell RNA sequencing in a mouse steatohepatitis model also revealed two macrophage populations: Kupffer cells expressing Clec4f and monocytes-derived macrophages expressing Lyz2 [32]. Moreover, the population of macrophages with monocytic origin, found in the liver with steatohepatitis, was also extremely heterogeneous. The authors distinguish at least three subtypes of such macrophages: MoMF I showed a high expression of the extracellular matrix protein fibronectin 1 (Fn1), as well as microsomal glutathione S-transferase 1 (Mgst1) and methionine sulfoxide reductase B1 (Msrb1). MoMF II expressed few marker genes including Chil1, mainly indicating a bone marrow origin. MoMF III was characterized by a pronounced expression of Il1b [32].
In summary, according to one set of reports, the resident mouse liver macrophages have Ly6C−CX3CR1low phenotype, whereas under the inflammatory conditions the liver tissue becomes infiltrated by the bone marrow-derived macrophages with Ly6C+CX3CR1hi phenotype [18][33][34]. Other studies indicate that Kupffer cells are either F4/80+CD11b−CD169+CD68+CD80lo, or CD68+CD11b−, or F4/80highCD11blow, whereas the infiltrating bone marrow-derived monocytic macrophages are F4/80+CD11b+CD80hi CD11b+ [16][29][30][35]. The data available for other mammalian species are limited. For humans, it has been proposed to use CD163L as a Kupffer cell-specific marker and CLEC5A as a marker specific for the monocyte-derived pro-inflammatory macrophages migrating to the liver [36].
Data on the composition of the liver macrophage population and their phenotypic characteristics are summarized in Figure 1.
Cells 08 01032 g001 550
Figure 1. Sources of development and immunophenotype of a subpopulation of liver macrophages.

3. The Diversity of Macrophage Functional Types

The macrophages represent heterogeneous cell population not only by their developmental sources, but also by their functional characteristics. Macrophages are capable of very rapid phenotypic and functional changes under the action of signal molecules.
The main activators of Kupffer cells are complement factors C3a and C5a, as well as LPS [37][38]. LPS directly through TLR4 activates Kupffer cells, which leads to an increase in the synthesis and release of TNF-a, IL-1b, IL-6, IL-12, IL-18, IL-10, and IFN-γ. The binding of LPS and TLR4 leads to the formation of a multiprotein membrane complex containing myeloid differentiation factor MyD88, TNFR-associated factors (TRAFs), interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinases (IRAKs), and TGF-beta-activated kinase 1 (TAK1). The formation of this complex leads to the activation of JNK and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs) and NF-kB signaling pathway were activated [5][37][38].
Upon activation of the complement system, C3a and C5a bind to their receptors with followed activation of down-stream signaling system which includes G proteins and phospholipase C. This pathway leads to increased synthesis of Kupffer cells Prostaglandin D2, Prostaglandin E2, Prostaglandin F2α, as well as thromboxane A2, as well as the release of superoxide [5][39]. Data on the Kupffer cells activation are summarized in Figure 2.
Cells 08 01032 g002 550
Figure 2. Mechanisms of Kupffer cell activation. C3 and C5, complement factor 3 and 5; C3a and C5a, activated complement factor 3 and 5; CD14, CD14 receptor; COX-I/II, cyclooxygenase-I/II; DAG, diacylglycerol; H2O2, hydrogen peroxide; iNOS, inducible nitric oxide synthase; IL-1, interleukin-1; IL-6, interleukin-6; IP3, inositol-3-phosphate; IRAK, interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase; LPB, LPS-binding protein; LPS, lipopolysaccharide; NOX, NADPH oxidase; NFκB, nuclear factor κB; NO, nitric oxide; O2−, superoxide anion; PGD2, PGE2 and PGF2α, Prostaglandin D2, Prostaglandin E2, Prostaglandin F2α; PKC, protein kinase C; PLA2, phospholipase A2; PLC, phospholipase C; TLR4, Toll-like receptor 4; TNFα, tumor necrosis factor-α; TRAP-6, TNF-activated factor 6; TXA2, thromboxane A2. With modification made in NetworkPainter from [5] under CC-BY.
Another way to activate Kupffer cells is through the formation of inflammasomes—a complex of NOD-like receptors and apoptosis-associated speck-like protein a CARD, which is necessary for activation of caspase 1, which in turn activates pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1β and IL-18 [40][41]. Formation of inflammasomes in the cytosol plays a central role in the development of inflammatory and fibrotic diseases. The most known for the development of liver diseases is the NLRP3 inflammasome, their increased formation leads to severe inflammation in the liver, which is associated with overproduction of IL-1β and severe liver neutrophilic infiltration [41].
In situ activation of macrophages (the so-called ‘macrophage polarization’) may take either the M1 pro-inflammatory direction or the M2 anti-inflammatory direction [37][42]. The M1 and M2 polar states of macrophage activation differ not only by specific markers, but, most importantly, by their roles in immune response and tissue repair [43]. A local shift towards M2 phenotype within a tissue damage area significantly improves the dynamics and efficiency of repair processes, as has been demonstrated for a number of particular models including skin wound healing [44], spinal cord damage [45], myocardial infarction and cardiomyopathy [46] and some other models. A shift in the balance of different functional classes of macrophages may occur by suppression of the M1 activation pathway as well as by reinforcement of the M2 activation pathway. At the same time, a part of macrophages may remain in the non-activated state [37][47]. In vivo shifts in the M1/M2 balance may be induced in a paracrine manner e.g., by blocking IL6 which promotes the M1 polarization [45] or introducing IL4 [48] or IL10 which promote the M2a and M2c polarization, respectively [49].
However, the use of markers is in many respects conditional. No exact correspondence exists between the Ly6C+ and M1 macrophages as well as between Ly6C- and M2 macrophages. On the contrary, Ly6C+ macrophages may in some cases give rise to both M1 and M2 functional types [50][51].
An experimental study by our research group has revealed that macrophages of bone-marrow origin and Kupffer cells have similar profiles of surface markers. Both of them express CD86 which is necessary for activation, proliferation, cytokine production and T cell differentiation [52], CD163 which is involved in bacterial recognition and triggering of local inflammatory reactions [53] and CD206 which is required for phagocytosis, antigen presentation and clearance of pro-inflammatory mediators from the circulation [54][55]. However, some quantitative differences in the expression of surface markers are evident: monocytic macrophages predominantly express the M1 marker CD86, whereas Kupffer cells predominantly express the M2 markers CD163 and CD206. At the same time, despite the association of surface markers with specific functionalities, the increased expression levels have been observed in both types of macrophages under the influence of bacterial endotoxin lipopolysaccharide (LPS) combined with IFN-γ or IL4 combined with IL10. Similar results have been obtained in the analysis of cytokine gene expression: transcription of pro-inflammatory cytokine genes (Il1b, Il6, Tnfa) and anti-inflammatory cytokine genes (Il10) in macrophages under the influence of LPS combined with IFN-γ or IL4 combined with IL10 becomes upregulated in concert [56].
To summarize, no strict border between M1 and M2 functional types of macrophages can be drawn. Instead, there is a continuous series of transitional forms being constantly updated to the needs of particular tissue microenvironments [38][57][58].
 

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/cells8091032

References

  1. Tsochatzis, E.A.; Bosch, J.; Burroughs, A.K. Liver cirrhosis. Lancet 2014, 383, 1749–1761.
  2. Ganne-Carrié, N. Epidemiology of liver cirrhosis. Rev. Prat. 2017, 67, 726–730.
  3. Nicolas, C.T.; Hickey, R.D.; Chen, H.S.; Mao, S.A.; Lopera Higuita, M.; Wang, Y.; Nyberg, S.L. Concise Review: Liver Regenerative Medicine: From Hepatocyte Transplantation to Bioartificial Livers and Bioengineered Grafts. Stem Cells 2017, 35, 42–50.
  4. Zhang, J.; Zhao, X.; Liang, L.; Li, J.; Demirci, U.; Wang, S. A decade of progress in liver regenerative medicine. Biomaterials 2018, 157, 161–176.
  5. Bilzer, M.; Roggel, F.; Gerbes, A.L. Role of Kupffer cells in host defense and liver disease. Liver Int. 2006, 26, 1175–1186.
  6. Liaskou, E.; Wilson, D.V.; Oo, Y.H. Innate immune cells in liver inflammation. Mediators Inflamm. 2012, 2012, 949157.
  7. Dong, X.; Liu, J.; Xu, Y.; Cao, H. Role of macrophages in experimental liver injury and repair in mice. Exp. Ther. Med. 2019, 17, 3835–3847.
  8. Michalopoulos, G.K. Advances in liver regeneration. Expert Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014, 8, 897–907.
  9. Guillot, A.; Tacke, F. Liver Macrophages: Old Dogmas and New Insights. Hepatol. Commun. 2019, 3, 730–743.
  10. Wynn, T.A.; Barron, L. Macrophages: master regulators of inflammation and fibrosis. Semin. Liver Dis. 2010, 30, 245–257.
  11. Beljaars, L.; Schippers, M.; Reker-Smit, C.; Martinez, F.O.; Helming, L.; Poelstra, K.; Melgert, B.N. Hepatic Localization of Macrophage Phenotypes during Fibrogenesis and Resolution of Fibrosis in Mice and Humans. Front. Immunol. 2014, 5, 430.
  12. Tacke, F. Targeting hepatic macrophages to treat liver diseases. J. Hepatol. 2017, 66, 1300–1312.
  13. Keirsse, J.; Van Damme, H.; Geeraerts, X.; Beschin, A.; Raes, G.; Van Ginderachter, J.A. The role of hepatic macrophages in liver metastasis. Cell. Immunol. 2018, 330, 202–215.
  14. Yeh, C.-C.; Chao, K.-C.; Huang, S.J. Innate Immunity, Decidual Cells, and Preeclampsia. Reprod. Sci. 2013, 20, 339–353.
  15. Chazaud, B. Macrophages: Supportive cells for tissue repair and regeneration. Immunobiology 2014, 219, 172–178.
  16. Nishiyama, K.; Nakashima, H.; Ikarashi, M.; Kinoshita, M.; Nakashima, M.; Aosasa, S.; Seki, S.; Yamamoto, J. Mouse CD11b+Kupffer cells recruited from bone marrow accelerate liver regeneration after partial hepatectomy. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, 1–16.
  17. Ikarashi, M.; Nakashima, H.; Kinoshita, M.; Sato, A.; Nakashima, M.; Miyazaki, H.; Nishiyama, K.; Yamamoto, J.; Seki, S. Distinct development and functions of resident and recruited liver Kupffer cells/macrophages. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2013, 94, 1325–1336.
  18. Zigmond, E.; Samia-Grinberg, S.; Pasmanik-Chor, M.; Brazowski, E.; Shibolet, O.; Halpern, Z.; Varol, C. Infiltrating Monocyte-Derived Macrophages and Resident Kupffer Cells Display Different Ontogeny and Functions in Acute Liver Injury. J. Immunol. 2014, 193, 344–353.
  19. Ju, C.; Tacke, F. Hepatic macrophages in homeostasis and liver diseases: from pathogenesis to novel therapeutic strategies. Cell. Mol. Immunol. 2016, 13, 316–327.
  20. Perdiguero, E.G.; Geissmann, F. The development and maintenance of resident macrophages. Nat. Immunol. 2016, 17, 2–8.
  21. You, Q.; Holt, M.; Yin, H.; Li, G.; Hu, C.J.; Ju, C. Role of hepatic resident and infiltrating macrophages in liver repair after acute injury. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2013, 86, 836–843.
  22. Armbrust, T.; Ramadori, G. Functional characterization of two different Kupffer cell populations of normal rat liver. J. Hepatol. 1996, 25, 518–528.
  23. He, Y.; Sadahiro, T.; Noh, S.I.; Wang, H.; Todo, T.; Chai, N.; Klein, A.S.; Wu, G.D. Flow cytometric isolation and phenotypic characterization of two subsets of ED2+ (CD163) hepatic macrophages in rats. Hepatol. Res. 2009, 39, 1208–1218.
  24. Gottfried, E.; Kunz-Schughart, L.A.; Weber, A.; Rehli, M.; Peuker, A.; Müller, A.; Kastenberger, M.; Brockhoff, G.; Andreesen, R.; Kreutz, M. Expression of CD68 in Non-Myeloid Cell Types. Scand. J. Immunol. 2008, 67, 453–463.
  25. Schittenhelm, L.; Hilkens, C.M.; Morrison, V.L. β2 Integrins As Regulators of Dendritic Cell, Monocyte, and Macrophage Function. Front. Immunol. 2017, 8, 1866.
  26. Sanchez-Madrid, F.; Simon, P.; Thompson, S.; Springer, T.A. Mapping of antigenic and functional epitopes on the alpha- and beta-subunits of two related mouse glycoproteins involved in cell interactions, LFA-1 and Mac-1. J. Exp. Med. 1983, 158, 586–602.
  27. Kinoshita, M.; Uchida, T.; Sato, A.; Nakashima, M.; Nakashima, H.; Shono, S.; Habu, Y.; Miyazaki, H.; Hiroi, S.; Seki, S. Characterization of two F4/80-positive Kupffer cell subsets by their function and phenotype in mice. J. Hepatol. 2010, 53, 903–910.
  28. Hoeffel, G.; Ginhoux, F. Fetal monocytes and the origins of tissue-resident macrophages. Cell. Immunol. 2018, 330, 5–15.
  29. Movita, D.; Kreefft, K.; Biesta, P.; van Oudenaren, A.; Leenen, P.J.M.; Janssen, H.L.A.; Boonstra, A. Kupffer cells express a unique combination of phenotypic and functional characteristics compared with splenic and peritoneal macrophages. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2012, 92, 723–733.
  30. Haldar, M.; Murphy, K.M. Origin, development, and homeostasis of tissue-resident macrophages. Immunol. Rev. 2014, 262, 25–35.
  31. MacParland, S.A.; Liu, J.C.; Ma, X.Z.; Innes, B.T.; Bartczak, A.M.; Gage, B.K.; Manuel, J.; Khuu, N.; Echeverri, J.; Linares, I.; et al. Single cell RNA sequencing of human liver reveals distinct intrahepatic macrophage populations. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9.
  32. Krenkel, O.; Hundertmark, J.; Abdallah, A.T.; Kohlhepp, M.; Puengel, T.; Roth, T.; Branco, D.P.P.; Mossanen, J.C.; Luedde, T.; Trautwein, C.; et al. Myeloid cells in liver and bone marrow acquire a functionally distinct inflammatory phenotype during obesity-related steatohepatitis. Gut 2019.
  33. Graubardt, N.; Vugman, M.; Mouhadeb, O.; Caliari, G.; Pasmanik-Chor, M.; Reuveni, D.; Zigmond, E.; Brazowski, E.; David, E.; Chappell-Maor, L.; et al. Ly6Chimonocytes and their macrophage descendants regulate neutrophil function and clearance in acetaminophen-induced liver injury. Front. Immunol. 2017.
  34. Yin, S.; Wang, H.; Park, O.; Wei, W.; Shen, J.; Gao, B. Enhanced liver regeneration in IL-10-deficient mice after partial hepatectomy via stimulating inflammatory response and activating hepatocyte STAT3. Am. J. Pathol. 2011, 178, 1614–1621.
  35. Behnke, K.; Zhuang, Y.; Xu, H.C.; Sundaram, B.; Reich, M.; Shinde, P.V.; Huang, J.; Modares, N.F.; Tumanov, A.V.; Polz, R.; et al. B Cell-Mediated Maintenance of Cluster of Differentiation 169-Positive Cells Is Critical for Liver Regeneration. Hepatology 2018, 68, 2348–2361.
  36. González-Domínguez, É.; Samaniego, R.; Flores-Sevilla, J.L.; Campos-Campos, S.F.; Gómez-Campos, G.; Salas, A.; Campos-Peña, V.; Corbí, Á.L.; Sánchez-Mateos, P.; Sánchez-Torres, C. CD163L1 and CLEC5A discriminate subsets of human resident and inflammatory macrophages in vivo. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2015, 98, 453–466.
  37. Murray, P.J.; Allen, J.E.; Biswas, S.K.; Fisher, E.A.; Gilroy, D.W.; Goerdt, S.; Gordon, S.; Hamilton, J.A.; Ivashkiv, L.B.; Lawrence, T.; et al. Macrophage Activation and Polarization: Nomenclature and Experimental Guidelines. Immunity 2014, 41, 14–20.
  38. Malyshev, I.; Malyshev, Y. Current Concept and Update of the Macrophage Plasticity Concept: Intracellular Mechanisms of Reprogramming and M3 Macrophage “Switch” Phenotype. Biomed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 1–22.
  39. Ren, C.-X.; Leng, R.-X.; Fan, Y.-G.; Pan, H.-F.; Li, B.-Z.; Wu, C.-H.; Wu, Q.; Wang, N.-N.; Xiong, Q.-R.; Geng, X.-P.; et al. Intratumoral and peritumoral expression of CD68 and CD206 in hepatocellular carcinoma and their prognostic value. Oncol. Rep. 2017, 38, 886–898.
  40. Mehal, W.Z. The inflammasome in liver injury and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Dig. Dis. 2014, 32, 507–515.
  41. Wree, A.; Eguchi, A.; Mcgeough, M.D.; Pena, C.A.; Johnson, C.D.; Canbay, A.; Hoffman, H.M.; Feldstein, A.E. NLRP3 inflammasome activation results in hepatocyte pyroptosis, liver inflammation, and fibrosis in mice. Hepatology 2014, 59, 898–910.
  42. Murray, P.J.; Wynn, T.A. Obstacles and opportunities for understanding macrophage polarization. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2011, 89, 557–563.
  43. Martinez, F.O.; Gordon, S. The M1 and M2 paradigm of macrophage activation: time for reassessment. F1000Prime Rep. 2014, 6, 13.
  44. Okizaki, S.; Ito, Y.; Hosono, K.; Oba, K.; Ohkubo, H.; Amano, H.; Shichiri, M.; Majima, M. Suppressed recruitment of alternatively activated macrophages reduces TGF-β1 and impairs wound healing in streptozotocin-induced diabetic mice. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2015, 70, 317–325.
  45. Nakajima, H.; Uchida, K.; Guerrero, A.R.; Watanabe, S.; Sugita, D.; Takeura, N.; Yoshida, A.; Long, G.; Wright, K.T.; Johnson, W.E.B.; et al. Transplantation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Promotes an Alternative Pathway of Macrophage Activation and Functional Recovery after Spinal Cord Injury. J. Neurotrauma 2012, 29, 1614–1625.
  46. Singla, D.K.; Singla, R.D.; Abdelli, L.S.; Glass, C. Fibroblast Growth Factor-9 Enhances M2 Macrophage Differentiation and Attenuates Adverse Cardiac Remodeling in the Infarcted Diabetic Heart. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0120739.
  47. Murray, P.J. Macrophage Polarization. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 2017, 79, 541–566.
  48. Kiguchi, N.; Kobayashi, Y.; Saika, F.; Sakaguchi, H.; Maeda, T.; Kishioka, S. Peripheral interleukin-4 ameliorates inflammatory macrophage-dependent neuropathic pain. Pain 2015, 156, 684–693.
  49. Yang, S.-L.; Chen, S.-L.; Wu, J.-Y.; Ho, T.-C.; Tsao, Y.-P. Pigment epithelium-derived factor induces interleukin-10 expression in human macrophages by induction of PPAR gamma. Life Sci. 2010, 87, 26–35.
  50. Kole, A.; Kelsall, B.L.; Valatas, V.; He, J.; Rivollier, A. Inflammation switches the differentiation program of Ly6C hi monocytes from antiinflammatory macrophages to inflammatory dendritic cells in the colon. J. Exp. Med. 2012, 209, 139–155.
  51. Bain, C.C.; Scott, C.L.; Uronen-Hansson, H.; Gudjonsson, S.; Jansson, O.; Grip, O.; Guilliams, M.; Malissen, B.; Agace, W.W.; Mowat, A.M. Resident and pro-inflammatory macrophages in the colon represent alternative context-dependent fates of the same Ly6Chi monocyte precursors. Mucosal Immunol. 2013, 6, 498–510.
  52. Yin, G.; Zhu, X.; Guo, C.; Yang, Y.; Han, T.; Chen, L.; Yin, W.; Gao, P.; Zhang, H.; Geng, J.; et al. Differential expression of estradiol and estrogen receptor α in severe preeclamptic pregnancies compared with normal pregnancies. Mol. Med. Rep. 2013, 7, 981–985.
  53. Fabriek, B.O.; van Bruggen, R.; Deng, D.M.; Ligtenberg, A.J.M.; Nazmi, K.; Schornagel, K.; Vloet, R.P.M.; Dijkstra, C.D.; van den Berg, T.K. The macrophage scavenger receptor CD163 functions as an innate immune sensor for bacteria. Blood 2009, 113, 887–892.
  54. Martinez-Pomares, L. The mannose receptor. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2012, 92, 1177–1186.
  55. Stahl, P.D.; Ezekowitz, R.A. The mannose receptor is a pattern recognition receptor involved in host defense. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 1998, 10, 50–55.
  56. Lokhonina, A.; Elchaninov, A.; Fatkhudinov, T.; Makarov, A.; Arutyunyan, I.; Grinberg, M.; Glinkina, V.; Surovtsev, V.; Bolshakova, G.; Goldshtein, D.; et al. Activated Macrophages of Monocytic Origin Predominantly Express Proinflammatory Cytokine Genes, Whereas Kupffer Cells Predominantly Express Anti-Inflammatory Cytokine Genes. Biomed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 1–13.
  57. Orecchioni, M.; Ghosheh, Y.; Pramod, A.B.; Ley, K. Macrophage Polarization: Different Gene Signatures in M1(LPS+) vs. Classically and M2(LPS–) vs. Alternatively Activated Macrophages. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10, 1084.
  58. Jablonski, K.A.; Amici, S.A.; Webb, L.M.; de Dios Ruiz-Rosado, J.; Popovich, P.G.; Partida-Sanchez, S.; Guerau-de-Arellano, M. Novel Markers to Delineate Murine M1 and M2 Macrophages. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0145342.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback