Macrophage polarization in kidney transplant patients

Macrophages can oscillate between two functionally distinct states: proinflammatory M1 and anti-inflammatory M2. Classically- activated M1 macrophages produce proinflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IFN-ƴ, and IL-6), which ares associated with graft dysfunction/rejections. In contrast, alternatively-activ...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Transplant immunology 2022-12, Vol.75, p.101717-101717, Article 101717
Hauptverfasser: Devraj, Vijaya Madhuri, Kalidindi, Karthik, Guditi, Swarnalatha, Uppin, Megha, Taduri, Gangadhar
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 101717
container_issue
container_start_page 101717
container_title Transplant immunology
container_volume 75
creator Devraj, Vijaya Madhuri
Kalidindi, Karthik
Guditi, Swarnalatha
Uppin, Megha
Taduri, Gangadhar
description Macrophages can oscillate between two functionally distinct states: proinflammatory M1 and anti-inflammatory M2. Classically- activated M1 macrophages produce proinflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IFN-ƴ, and IL-6), which ares associated with graft dysfunction/rejections. In contrast, alternatively-activated macrophages M2 produce anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-10) that are involved in host defense, tissue repair/remodeling, debris scavenging, and immune regulation, thereby helps to improve long-term graft survival. In this study, we have identified graft dysfunction or rejection by biopsies using immunohistochemistry. Flow cytometry was used to detect M1 (CD163+, CD206+, and CD200R+) and M2 (CD86+, CD80+, and CD68+) macrophages. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was used to measure a panel of cytokines. Histological analysis of the kidney transplants (n = 30) was used to distinguish those with acute/chronic allograft rejection (n = 15) from those with stable kidney function (n = 15). Flow cytometry results showed that patients with graft rejection exhibited macrophages with decreased expression (33.28%) of M2 macrophage markers (CD163+, CD206+, and CD200R+) and reduced production of IL-10 (as detected using ELISA). However, 71.33% of the macrophages were found to have M1 markers (CD86+, CD80+, and CD68+; p = 0.002) and produced proinflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IFN-ƴ, and IL-6) by ELISA (p = 0.001) when compared with the healthy control group. In contrast, stable kidney transplants had 65.58% M2 and 27.66% M1 macrophages (p = 0.03) and produced IL-10. These findings suggest that M1 macrophages dominate in kidney grafts with dysfunction or rejection, whereas M2 macrophages dominate in kidney grafts with stable function. Our observations implicate a major shift towards M2 macrophages in stable kidney transplants, which are markedly downregulated in patients with graft dysfunction or rejection. In contrast, an increased frequency of M1 macrophages remained dominant in the pathophysiology of kidney transplants undergoing active dysfunction or rejection. [Display omitted] •Macrophages can contribute to allograft-destructive or allograft-protective mechanisms based on their phenotypes.•This study demonstrated a major shift in macrophage differentiation towards M1 macrophages in patients with graft rejections.•This study has significant implications for developing novel prognostic and therapeutic strategies for transplant rejections.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.trim.2022.101717
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2716932113</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0966327422001915</els_id><sourcerecordid>2716932113</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-b33b965ac60034c82c861a40f2409be6f14cb71c43e24cd48f1e19edc6e48ee93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtPwzAQhC0EoqXwBzigHLkk-BUnlrigipdUxAXOluNswCVNgu0ilV-PoxSOnFbanRntfAidE5wRTMTVOgvObjKKKR0XBSkO0JyURZnmXNJDNMdSiJTRgs_QifdrjDHNZXGMZkwQhoWUc5Q_aeP64V2_QTL0rXb2Wwfbd4ntkg9bd7BLgtOdH1rdhWSIN-iCP0VHjW49nO3nAr3e3b4sH9LV8_3j8maVGpaLkFaMVVLk2giMGTclNaUgmuOGciwrEA3hpiqI4QwoNzUvGwJEQm0E8BJAsgW6nHIH139uwQe1sd5AG5-BfusVLYiQjBLCopRO0ljHeweNGiIc7XaKYDXiUms14lIjLjXhiqaLff622kD9Z_nlEwXXkwBiyy8LTnkTCRiorQMTVN3b__J_AOhEe30</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2716932113</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Macrophage polarization in kidney transplant patients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Devraj, Vijaya Madhuri ; Kalidindi, Karthik ; Guditi, Swarnalatha ; Uppin, Megha ; Taduri, Gangadhar</creator><creatorcontrib>Devraj, Vijaya Madhuri ; Kalidindi, Karthik ; Guditi, Swarnalatha ; Uppin, Megha ; Taduri, Gangadhar</creatorcontrib><description>Macrophages can oscillate between two functionally distinct states: proinflammatory M1 and anti-inflammatory M2. Classically- activated M1 macrophages produce proinflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IFN-ƴ, and IL-6), which ares associated with graft dysfunction/rejections. In contrast, alternatively-activated macrophages M2 produce anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-10) that are involved in host defense, tissue repair/remodeling, debris scavenging, and immune regulation, thereby helps to improve long-term graft survival. In this study, we have identified graft dysfunction or rejection by biopsies using immunohistochemistry. Flow cytometry was used to detect M1 (CD163+, CD206+, and CD200R+) and M2 (CD86+, CD80+, and CD68+) macrophages. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was used to measure a panel of cytokines. Histological analysis of the kidney transplants (n = 30) was used to distinguish those with acute/chronic allograft rejection (n = 15) from those with stable kidney function (n = 15). Flow cytometry results showed that patients with graft rejection exhibited macrophages with decreased expression (33.28%) of M2 macrophage markers (CD163+, CD206+, and CD200R+) and reduced production of IL-10 (as detected using ELISA). However, 71.33% of the macrophages were found to have M1 markers (CD86+, CD80+, and CD68+; p = 0.002) and produced proinflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IFN-ƴ, and IL-6) by ELISA (p = 0.001) when compared with the healthy control group. In contrast, stable kidney transplants had 65.58% M2 and 27.66% M1 macrophages (p = 0.03) and produced IL-10. These findings suggest that M1 macrophages dominate in kidney grafts with dysfunction or rejection, whereas M2 macrophages dominate in kidney grafts with stable function. Our observations implicate a major shift towards M2 macrophages in stable kidney transplants, which are markedly downregulated in patients with graft dysfunction or rejection. In contrast, an increased frequency of M1 macrophages remained dominant in the pathophysiology of kidney transplants undergoing active dysfunction or rejection. [Display omitted] •Macrophages can contribute to allograft-destructive or allograft-protective mechanisms based on their phenotypes.•This study demonstrated a major shift in macrophage differentiation towards M1 macrophages in patients with graft rejections.•This study has significant implications for developing novel prognostic and therapeutic strategies for transplant rejections.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0966-3274</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5492</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.trim.2022.101717</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36130699</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Anti-Inflammatory Agents ; Biomarkers - metabolism ; Cytokines - metabolism ; Graft dysfunction ; Humans ; Interleukin-10 - metabolism ; Interleukin-6 - metabolism ; Kidney Transplantation ; Macrophage polarization ; Macrophages ; Stable graft function ; Transplant rejection ; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha - metabolism</subject><ispartof>Transplant immunology, 2022-12, Vol.75, p.101717-101717, Article 101717</ispartof><rights>2022</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-b33b965ac60034c82c861a40f2409be6f14cb71c43e24cd48f1e19edc6e48ee93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-b33b965ac60034c82c861a40f2409be6f14cb71c43e24cd48f1e19edc6e48ee93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trim.2022.101717$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36130699$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Devraj, Vijaya Madhuri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalidindi, Karthik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guditi, Swarnalatha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uppin, Megha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taduri, Gangadhar</creatorcontrib><title>Macrophage polarization in kidney transplant patients</title><title>Transplant immunology</title><addtitle>Transpl Immunol</addtitle><description>Macrophages can oscillate between two functionally distinct states: proinflammatory M1 and anti-inflammatory M2. Classically- activated M1 macrophages produce proinflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IFN-ƴ, and IL-6), which ares associated with graft dysfunction/rejections. In contrast, alternatively-activated macrophages M2 produce anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-10) that are involved in host defense, tissue repair/remodeling, debris scavenging, and immune regulation, thereby helps to improve long-term graft survival. In this study, we have identified graft dysfunction or rejection by biopsies using immunohistochemistry. Flow cytometry was used to detect M1 (CD163+, CD206+, and CD200R+) and M2 (CD86+, CD80+, and CD68+) macrophages. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was used to measure a panel of cytokines. Histological analysis of the kidney transplants (n = 30) was used to distinguish those with acute/chronic allograft rejection (n = 15) from those with stable kidney function (n = 15). Flow cytometry results showed that patients with graft rejection exhibited macrophages with decreased expression (33.28%) of M2 macrophage markers (CD163+, CD206+, and CD200R+) and reduced production of IL-10 (as detected using ELISA). However, 71.33% of the macrophages were found to have M1 markers (CD86+, CD80+, and CD68+; p = 0.002) and produced proinflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IFN-ƴ, and IL-6) by ELISA (p = 0.001) when compared with the healthy control group. In contrast, stable kidney transplants had 65.58% M2 and 27.66% M1 macrophages (p = 0.03) and produced IL-10. These findings suggest that M1 macrophages dominate in kidney grafts with dysfunction or rejection, whereas M2 macrophages dominate in kidney grafts with stable function. Our observations implicate a major shift towards M2 macrophages in stable kidney transplants, which are markedly downregulated in patients with graft dysfunction or rejection. In contrast, an increased frequency of M1 macrophages remained dominant in the pathophysiology of kidney transplants undergoing active dysfunction or rejection. [Display omitted] •Macrophages can contribute to allograft-destructive or allograft-protective mechanisms based on their phenotypes.•This study demonstrated a major shift in macrophage differentiation towards M1 macrophages in patients with graft rejections.•This study has significant implications for developing novel prognostic and therapeutic strategies for transplant rejections.</description><subject>Anti-Inflammatory Agents</subject><subject>Biomarkers - metabolism</subject><subject>Cytokines - metabolism</subject><subject>Graft dysfunction</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interleukin-10 - metabolism</subject><subject>Interleukin-6 - metabolism</subject><subject>Kidney Transplantation</subject><subject>Macrophage polarization</subject><subject>Macrophages</subject><subject>Stable graft function</subject><subject>Transplant rejection</subject><subject>Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha - metabolism</subject><issn>0966-3274</issn><issn>1878-5492</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtPwzAQhC0EoqXwBzigHLkk-BUnlrigipdUxAXOluNswCVNgu0ilV-PoxSOnFbanRntfAidE5wRTMTVOgvObjKKKR0XBSkO0JyURZnmXNJDNMdSiJTRgs_QifdrjDHNZXGMZkwQhoWUc5Q_aeP64V2_QTL0rXb2Wwfbd4ntkg9bd7BLgtOdH1rdhWSIN-iCP0VHjW49nO3nAr3e3b4sH9LV8_3j8maVGpaLkFaMVVLk2giMGTclNaUgmuOGciwrEA3hpiqI4QwoNzUvGwJEQm0E8BJAsgW6nHIH139uwQe1sd5AG5-BfusVLYiQjBLCopRO0ljHeweNGiIc7XaKYDXiUms14lIjLjXhiqaLff622kD9Z_nlEwXXkwBiyy8LTnkTCRiorQMTVN3b__J_AOhEe30</recordid><startdate>202212</startdate><enddate>202212</enddate><creator>Devraj, Vijaya Madhuri</creator><creator>Kalidindi, Karthik</creator><creator>Guditi, Swarnalatha</creator><creator>Uppin, Megha</creator><creator>Taduri, Gangadhar</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202212</creationdate><title>Macrophage polarization in kidney transplant patients</title><author>Devraj, Vijaya Madhuri ; Kalidindi, Karthik ; Guditi, Swarnalatha ; Uppin, Megha ; Taduri, Gangadhar</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-b33b965ac60034c82c861a40f2409be6f14cb71c43e24cd48f1e19edc6e48ee93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Anti-Inflammatory Agents</topic><topic>Biomarkers - metabolism</topic><topic>Cytokines - metabolism</topic><topic>Graft dysfunction</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interleukin-10 - metabolism</topic><topic>Interleukin-6 - metabolism</topic><topic>Kidney Transplantation</topic><topic>Macrophage polarization</topic><topic>Macrophages</topic><topic>Stable graft function</topic><topic>Transplant rejection</topic><topic>Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha - metabolism</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Devraj, Vijaya Madhuri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalidindi, Karthik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guditi, Swarnalatha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uppin, Megha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taduri, Gangadhar</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Transplant immunology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Devraj, Vijaya Madhuri</au><au>Kalidindi, Karthik</au><au>Guditi, Swarnalatha</au><au>Uppin, Megha</au><au>Taduri, Gangadhar</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Macrophage polarization in kidney transplant patients</atitle><jtitle>Transplant immunology</jtitle><addtitle>Transpl Immunol</addtitle><date>2022-12</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>75</volume><spage>101717</spage><epage>101717</epage><pages>101717-101717</pages><artnum>101717</artnum><issn>0966-3274</issn><eissn>1878-5492</eissn><abstract>Macrophages can oscillate between two functionally distinct states: proinflammatory M1 and anti-inflammatory M2. Classically- activated M1 macrophages produce proinflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IFN-ƴ, and IL-6), which ares associated with graft dysfunction/rejections. In contrast, alternatively-activated macrophages M2 produce anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-10) that are involved in host defense, tissue repair/remodeling, debris scavenging, and immune regulation, thereby helps to improve long-term graft survival. In this study, we have identified graft dysfunction or rejection by biopsies using immunohistochemistry. Flow cytometry was used to detect M1 (CD163+, CD206+, and CD200R+) and M2 (CD86+, CD80+, and CD68+) macrophages. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was used to measure a panel of cytokines. Histological analysis of the kidney transplants (n = 30) was used to distinguish those with acute/chronic allograft rejection (n = 15) from those with stable kidney function (n = 15). Flow cytometry results showed that patients with graft rejection exhibited macrophages with decreased expression (33.28%) of M2 macrophage markers (CD163+, CD206+, and CD200R+) and reduced production of IL-10 (as detected using ELISA). However, 71.33% of the macrophages were found to have M1 markers (CD86+, CD80+, and CD68+; p = 0.002) and produced proinflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IFN-ƴ, and IL-6) by ELISA (p = 0.001) when compared with the healthy control group. In contrast, stable kidney transplants had 65.58% M2 and 27.66% M1 macrophages (p = 0.03) and produced IL-10. These findings suggest that M1 macrophages dominate in kidney grafts with dysfunction or rejection, whereas M2 macrophages dominate in kidney grafts with stable function. Our observations implicate a major shift towards M2 macrophages in stable kidney transplants, which are markedly downregulated in patients with graft dysfunction or rejection. In contrast, an increased frequency of M1 macrophages remained dominant in the pathophysiology of kidney transplants undergoing active dysfunction or rejection. [Display omitted] •Macrophages can contribute to allograft-destructive or allograft-protective mechanisms based on their phenotypes.•This study demonstrated a major shift in macrophage differentiation towards M1 macrophages in patients with graft rejections.•This study has significant implications for developing novel prognostic and therapeutic strategies for transplant rejections.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>36130699</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.trim.2022.101717</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0966-3274
ispartof Transplant immunology, 2022-12, Vol.75, p.101717-101717, Article 101717
issn 0966-3274
1878-5492
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2716932113
source MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Anti-Inflammatory Agents
Biomarkers - metabolism
Cytokines - metabolism
Graft dysfunction
Humans
Interleukin-10 - metabolism
Interleukin-6 - metabolism
Kidney Transplantation
Macrophage polarization
Macrophages
Stable graft function
Transplant rejection
Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha - metabolism
title Macrophage polarization in kidney transplant patients
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T01%3A18%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Macrophage%20polarization%20in%20kidney%20transplant%20patients&rft.jtitle=Transplant%20immunology&rft.au=Devraj,%20Vijaya%20Madhuri&rft.date=2022-12&rft.volume=75&rft.spage=101717&rft.epage=101717&rft.pages=101717-101717&rft.artnum=101717&rft.issn=0966-3274&rft.eissn=1878-5492&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.trim.2022.101717&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2716932113%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2716932113&rft_id=info:pmid/36130699&rft_els_id=S0966327422001915&rfr_iscdi=true